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 1-14 are pending. Claims 1, 10-11 and 13 have been amended and no new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative traverses the rejection of Claims 1-14 under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. The Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims are not directed to a certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process but to “a control unit configured to execute a plurality of commands to increase the point fluctuation of the reward game by keeping a designated pattern displayed in the reward game, and changing the associated points of the displayed patterns according to a predetermined rule when a linking symbol is newly generated” (see Remarks, pg. 5-8). Specifically, the Applicant’s representative asserts that this is a specific improvement in the technical implementation of game systems by providing a game system with “a display unit, a game result generating unit, and a control unit, wherein the game result generating unit generates a plurality of group symbols in the reward game, and the plurality of group symbols are displayed on the display positions of the game screen” (see Remarks, pg. 5). Moreover, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the control unit is configured to perform specific commands such as “determining whether a symbol is a designated pattern with an associated point,” “controlling the display unit to keep displaying the designated pattern,” “associating the designated pattern with the linking symbol,” and “changing the associated point” so that during the reward game the player’s interest may be maintained for a long period of time and increasing the time of using a slot machine. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The steps are directed to a series of rules and/or instructions and./or insignificant extra solution activity for managing the reward game such as: “determining whether a symbol is a designated pattern with an associated point”, “controlling the display to keep displaying the designated pattern,” “associated the designated pattern with the linking symbol,” and “changing the associated point”. Moreover, the limitations for the control unit to “determine the designated pattern with the associated point…by the game results generating unit and controls the display unit to keep displaying the designated pattern” and “determine a linking symbol from the newly generated group symbols….with the linking symbol accordingly” are directed to observation, judgements, evaluations and/or opinions that are analogous to implementing game rules for managing the game and/or mental processes that are capable of being performed in the human mind (e.g., a human is capable of visually determining whether a pattern and/or linking symbol appears in the reward game. Furthermore, merely reciting the steps to be performed by “the control unit”, “game result generating unit”, and/or “the display unit” does not integrate the claim into a practical application but is analogous to invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, performing insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provides a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)), which does not indicate that the additional limitations integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
With respect to Step 2B, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the present invention amount to significantly more because they recite “a technical effect of enhancing the fluctuation of reward points, thereby maintaining the player’s interest and increasing the time of using a slot machine” (see Remarks, pg. 7). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Managing the fluctuation of reward points and maintaining the player’s interest and time of using a slot machine amounts to the abstract idea of managing a reward game. Furthermore, maintaining player’s interest and increasing the time of using a slot machine is directed to the business interest of the reward game and is not found to analogous to a technical solution to a technical problem that would amount to significantly more. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection under 35 USC 101 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 1-14 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 which are underlined in the claim below:
1. A game system, configured to provide a slot game and accumulate symbols to increase reward points – certain method of organizing human activity, the slot game includes a reward game which is started after satisfying an activation event, and has at least one free round being played in sequence – certain method of organizing human activity, the game system comprising:
a display unit, configured to display real-time game images of the slot game, the display unit comprising a game screen, wherein the game screen comprises a plurality of display positions arranged in a matrix – certain method of organizing human activity;
a game result generating unit, configured to generate a plurality of group symbols in the reward game-certain method of organizing human activity; and
a control unit, connected to the display unit and the game result generating unit, and in each of the at least one free round of the reward game sequentially played,-certain method of organizing human activity; the control unit performing following steps of:
controlling the game result generating unit to generate the plurality of group symbols;
controlling the display unit to display the plurality of group symbols newly generated on the plurality of display positions of the game screen;
determining whether any one of the plurality of group symbols newly generated includes a designated pattern with an associated point; -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process
controlling the display unit to keep displaying the designated pattern on the display position where the plurality of group symbols include the designated pattern in the reward game; - certain method of organizing human activity;
determining whether any one of the plurality of group symbols newly generated includes a linking symbol with a predetermined rule; -certain method of organizing human activity;
associating the designated pattern which is kept displaying in the reward game with the linking symbol; -certain method of organizing human activity;
associating the designated pattern which is kept displaying in the reward game with the linking symbol;
changing the associated point of the designated pattern associated with the linking symbol according to the predetermined rule; and controlling the display unit to display the changed designated pattern on the display position of the game screen; and
determining whether the at least one free round of the reward game has been played; if yes, ending the reward game; if no, continuing to play the at least one free round in sequence – certain method of organizing human activity.
The limitations, as underlined above, are found to recite a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite a series of rules and/or instructions for managing a sequence of a slot game. Moreover, certain limitations have been found to recite a mental process because they recite an observation, judgment, evaluation, and/or opinion. For at least these reasons, the claims 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 game system, configured to”, “the game system comprising:”, “a display unit, configured to display real-time game images of the slot game, the display unit comprising a game screen,” “a game result generating unit, configured to” “a control unit, connected to the display unit and the game result generating unit, and” “controlling the display unit to” “and controlling the display unit to display the changed designated pattern on the display position of the game screen;” recite instructions to invoke 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 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: “A game system”, “a display unit, configured to display real-time game images of the slot game, the display unit comprising a game screen”, “ a game result generating unit” and “ a control unit” when viewed as individual elements and/or as a collection of elements amount to invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea 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 A1) discloses a conventional game system comprises a display unit to present a game screen with images, symbols, and/or a variety of gaming symbols, a game result generating unit using a random number generator 160 and a processor in combination with a plurality of reels (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0008, 0037-0041). For at least these reasons, when the additional elements are viewed individually and/or as a whole they are not found to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Regarding dependent claims 2-14, the limitations have been reviewed and were found to recite additional limitations of a grouping of abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a)), invoking a computer 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 at least these reasons, claims 1-14 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