DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15-17, 19, and 21 are pending. Claims 1, 8, 12, 15, and 19 have been amended and Claims 4, 6-7, 11, 13, 14, 17, and 20 are cancelled. Claim 21 has been newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative traverses the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101. Specifically, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims are i) not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A-prong 1 but are directed to technical improvements (see Remarks, pg. 9-10); ii) the claims integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2 (see Remarks, pg. 10-12); and iii) satisfy Step 2B for substantially the same reasons as discussed in Step 2A-prong 2 because they are not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the art (see Remarks, pg. 13). The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons provided in the sections below.
With respect to Step 2A-prong 1, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims are not directed to mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity but to technical improvements in the technical field of electronic gaming (see Remarks, pg. 9-10). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite a series of steps and/or instructions for managing a symbol bingo game such as but not limited to: “integrate one or more first predefined winning bingo patterns within the play area such that the one or more first predefined winning bingo patterns are evaluated on the matrix in addition to the payline being evaluated on the matrix” “determine a first outcome”, “determine whether the first plurality of symbols satisfy any of the paylines” “determine that a first subset of symbols…by comparing the first plurality of symbols against the one or more predefined wining bingo patterns”, “in response to determining…the first subset of symbols forming the predefined winning bingo pattern”, and “determine a second outcome…that do not correspond to the one or more first predefined winning bingo patterns”. There limitations are found to recite a certain method of organizing human activity for managing a symbol bingo game which is analogous to managing a wagering/bingo game that the courts have indicated is directed to a grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A-prong 1. Moreover, the rules and/or instructions recited in the claims are found to be capable of being performed in the human mind and/or with the aid of a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea as opposed to being directed to an improvement in a technical field of electronic gaming. For at least these reasons, the analysis and rejection under Step 2A-prong 1 has been maintained below.
With respect to the Step 2A-prong 2, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because they integrate the claim into a practical application. Specifically, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims are directed to improvements to the functioning of a computer by “integrate the game play matrix with the predefined patterns (e.g., bingo patterns, have created a gaming operation that allows a player to win or trigger a bonus game on a single spin” (see Remarks, pg. 10-11). Furthermore, the Applicant’s representative argues that such gaming operations may include other technical improvements such as: “reduced memory usage, improved user interface (as fewer items need to be displayed to the player because of the integration), improved computational speeds because fewer items are displayed and less data is stored, thereby allowing the various embodiments described herein to be implemented on smaller and/or computationally limited devices” that provides the necessary technical explanation of the asserted improvement that is present in the specification to establish a practical application (see Remarks, pg. 10-12 – citing [0024], [0027]). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in Step 2A-prong 2, the claimed steps to “utilize a bingo card and a slot game, to trigger a payout, the slot game could form a bingo line on the bingo card after multiple spins” and “integrate the game play matrix with the predefined patterns (e.g., bingo patterns) to be predefined game outcomes are directed to rules and/or instructions for managing the slot bingo game. Moreover, the cited portions of the Specification purported to support a technical solution to a technical problem provides a general statement as to the alleged improvement but does not provide any detail as to how the claimed steps and/or instructions for performing the symbol bingo game to integrate a solution to the technical problem required to i) reduce memory usage, ii) improve the functioning of the user interface; iii) improve computational speeds to be performed on smaller and/or computationally limited devices that would indicate to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts of the asserted improvement as opposed to invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, perform insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the analysis under Step 2A-prong 2 has been maintained below.
With respect to Step 2B, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the present claims satisfy Step 2B because that it is not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the art at least to perform the steps of Claim 1 recited above. The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the same reasons as provided above. In particular, the claims are found to recite a certain method of organizing human activity (e.g., managing a symbol bingo game) under Step 2A-prong 1, recite additional limitations that invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Moreover, the additional elements when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements such as: “an electronic gaming device”, “a display device”, “at least one memory device”, “at least one processor” and/or “a random number generator (RNG) are well-known, routine, and conventional devices known by one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts to be invoked to perform a regulated wagering game in a casino environment. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection has been maintained below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15-17, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, recites limitations that are directed to a grouping of abstract ideas such as:
1. An electronic gaming device comprising:
a display device;
at least one memory device; and at least one processor configured to execute programmed instructions stored in the at least one memory device, which when executed, cause the at least one processor to:
control the display device to display a matrix of symbol positions included on a plurality of independent reels, wherein the matrix of symbol positions define a play area, and wherein the plurality of independent reels have different distributions of credit symbols;
integrate one or more first predefined winning bingo patterns within the play area such that the one or more first predefined winning bingo patterns are evaluated on the matrix in addition to the paylines being evaluated on the matrix; - certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
in response to receipt of an input to play an instance of a game, determine a first outcome, based at least in part on an output of a random number generator (RNG), that includes a first plurality of symbols to display in the play area; -certain method of organizing human activity;
determine whether the first plurality of symbols satisfy any of the paylines; - certain method of organizing human activity and mental process;
determine that a first subset of symbols of the first plurality of symbols displayed in the play area correspond to a predefined winning bingo pattern of the one or more predefined winning bingo patterns by comparing the first plurality of symbols against the one or more predefined winning bingo patterns; -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
in response to determining that the first subset of symbols correspond to the one or more first predefined winning bingo patterns defined within the play area:
determine an output amount based at least in part upon output amounts of the fist subset of symbols forming the predefined winning bingo pattern; and – certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
control the display device to hold at least the first subset of symbols in place within the play area; and
determine a second outcome, based at least in part on an output of the RNG, that includes a second plurality of symbols to display in the play area within the matrix of symbol positions that do not correspond to the one or more first predefined winning bingo patterns. -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process
The limitations, as underlined above, are found to recite a certain method of organizing human activity because they are found to be directed to steps and/or instructions for managing a symbol bingo game. Moreover, certain limitations are found to be directed to mental processes because they recite an observation, judgment, evaluation, and/or opinion that is capable of being performed in the human mind. For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1 are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A-prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations such as: “a display device;” “at least one memory device; and at least one processor configured to execute programmed instructions stored in the at least one memory device, which when executed, cause the at least one processor to:” “control the display device to display a matrix of symbol positions included on a plurality of independent reels, wherein the matrix of symbol positions define a play area, and wherein the plurality of independent reels have different distributions of credit symbols;” “based at least in part on an output of a random number generator (RNG)” “control the display device to” and “based at least in part on an output of the RNG,” are found to amount to at least one of mere instructions to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity including pre and post solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, the additional limitations are not found to integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2.
The claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements such as: an electronic gaming device comprising a display device, at least one memory device, and at least one processor to execute programmed instructions stored in the at least one memory device and a random number generator (RNG), when viewed individually and/or as a collection of components are found to perform conventional operations that amount to invoking highly-generalized computer components as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For instance, Vancura (US 2010/0029381) discloses a conventional gaming device comprises a display device, at least one memory storing game programming to execute the game, and to determine pseudo-random game outcomes using a random number generator are well-known, routine, and conventional to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0008, 0037-0040). For at least these reasons, the additional elements are not found to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding independent Claims 8 and 15, the claims recite substantially the same subject matter as discussed with respect independent Claim 1 above and incorporated herein. The differences are that they are directed to the method of operating the electronic gaming device and the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing the instructions embodiments as opposed to the electronic gaming device of independent Claim 1. However, these difference do not change or alter the analysis and are found to be directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
With respect to dependent claims 2-3, 5, 9-10, 12, 16-17, 19, and 21, the limitations of the dependent claims have been analyzed and were found to recite at least one of: additional limitations of a grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.05), mere instructions to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and/or providing a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). For at least these reasons, claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15-17, 19, and 21 are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00-6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN HSU/EXAMINER, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights