DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed October 10, 2025. The Examiner acknowledges that claims 1, 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13, 15, & 17-20 were amended, claims 3 & 16 were canceled, and no new claims were added. Therefore, claims 1, 2, 4-15, & 17-20 are currently pending.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 4-15, & 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bigelow, JR. et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0113703; hereinafter “Bigelow”) in view of Parker (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/082069) and Moody (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0012500)
Claims 1, 15, & 19: Bigelow discloses an electronic gaming system comprising a memory (figure 2[memory 40]); a display device (figure 1A[display device 30], figure 2[display devices 30,32]); and a processor (figure 2[processor 38]) configured to execute instructions stored in the memory (paragraph 0042), which when executed, cause the processor to provide a base game to a player, the base game being able to trigger a bonus event that includes a number of free games that are associated with incrementing multipliers (i.e. each subsequent free game in the number of free games is associated with a multiplier higher than a previous free game of the number of free games; see abstract, figures 3-5D, and at least paragraphs 0064).
Bigelow fails to disclose the invention substantially as claimed including two aspects.
Firstly, Bigelow primarily discusses their inventive concept in accordance with a slot game having a plurality of reels, where the base game can include a plurality of reels having symbols thereon and a triggering event is associated with a combination of symbols on those reels. The triggering event triggers a bonus event consisting of a number of free spins of a similar reel-based slot game. However, Bigelow explicitly indicates that such discussion is exemplary to the inventive concept and the concept can be equally employed in other games such as poker, blackjack, keno and other primary or secondary games (paragraphs 0020, 0036, 0065). Those skilled in the art would be readily familiar with employing similarly performing bonus techniques across a variety of underlying types of games, as Bigelow points out.
Secondly, in the context of applying Bigelow to other underlying types of games, such as poker in which the game outcomes are hands of cards, Bigelow fails to explicitly disclose that the memory stores one or more rules defining at least one condition, the rules including (i) one or more predefined card combinations and (ii) a predefined number of free games associated with each of the one or more predefined card combinations, wherein the predefined number of free games associated with each of the one or more predefined card combinations depends on a probability of displaying the corresponding card combination of the one or more predefined card combinations, so as to be applied in a manner in which the number of free games is dynamically based on comparing a base game outcome of a hand of cards in a poker game to the rules stored in the memory to determine a number of free game outcomes corresponding to a predefined card combination in the base outcome.
As for the first deficiency of Bigelow above, Parker discloses an exemplary poker game involving conventional gameplay with respect to a draw-poker style game. That is, Parker explicitly discloses a poker game in which a player receives one or more base hands, some cards are held, some cards are discarded, and discarded cards are replaced to form a final hand. Parker also incorporates replication of held cards into one or more additional hands (figures 1A-1J and paragraphs 0029-0034).
As for the second deficiency of Bigelow above, Moody discloses a poker game in which memory stores one or more rules defining at least one condition, the rules including (i) one or more predefined card combinations and (ii) a predefined number of free games associated with each of the one or more predefined card combinations, wherein the predefined number of free games associated with each of the one or more predefined card combinations depends on a probability of displaying the corresponding card combination of the one or more predefined card combinations (paragraphs 0021-0023, wherein Moody teaches that a base outcome is evaluated to determine a number of free games to provide based on comparison against a table that defines one or more predefined card combinations or hand categories, and associated predefined number of free games, where it is interpreted that the predefined number of free games is based on a probability of obtaining any given winning hand category, without any specificity to the relationship thereof).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have possessed the common knowledge and routine skill to have provided an obvious variation of the Bigelow concept as applied to the poker game of Parker and include the teachings of Moody to provide dynamic game play in which bonus events comprise different quantities of free plays based on base outcome triggering conditions. The obvious variant would function to:
generate a base game outcome that includes display of at least one hand of cards on the display device (e.g. as outset by Bigelow, a base game of the underlying type of game is presented to the player, such that in combination with Parker & Moody, the underlying type of game is a poker game as detailed by Parker & Moody, the poker game presenting a base game having at least one hand of cards displayed on a display device);
in response to generating the base game outcome, compare the at least one hand of cards to the one or more predefined card combinations stored in the memory, to determine that a first condition is satisfied for triggering a free games feature (e.g. based on the teachings of Moody, the obvious variant combination of Bigelow, Parker, and Moody determines if the base outcome includes a triggering event required to determine a number of free games, i.e. Moody’s Table 2 requires at least a “Jacks or Better” minimum winning hand category to trigger a determination of a corresponding number of free hands, thus a first determination is made based on the Table 2 that at least the first condition of “Jacks or Better” is present in the base game outcome);
in response to the first condition being satisfied, determine a number of free game outcomes to generate based on the at least one hand of cards, each of the free game outcomes being associated with a corresponding multiplier (i.e. similarly to as discussed above, the obvious variant combination would utilize the stored rules similar to Table 2 of Moody’s teachings to determine the specific number of free games to generated based on the hand of cards in the base game outcome, where Bigelow’s concept is applied to poker games, such that the determined number of free games are each associated with a multiplier per Bigelow’s incremental multiplier disclosure);
after determining the number of free game outcomes to generate, generate a first free game outcome of the free games feature that includes display of a first free hand of cards, wherein a first multiplier is applied to an award associated with the first free game outcome (i.e. similarly to Bigelow’s figures 3-5D, the obvious variant applying the Bigelow concept to the poker game of Parker with the teachings of Moody would present the determined number of free poker games, in response to the first condition being met, the determined number of free consisting of one or more free hands during the “free games feature”, including at least a first free game that includes a display of a first free hand of cards, and a first multiplier, as illustrated by Bigelow in a slots variant, associated therewith to be applied to any award associated with the first free game); and
in response to the first condition being satisfied and after the first free game is generated, generate a second free game outcome of the free games feature that includes display of a second free hand of cards, wherein a second multiplier is applied to an award associated with the second free game, the second multiplier being greater than the first multiplier (e.g. essentially the same as above with respect to the first free game occurs in association with a second free game of the “free games feature”, the second free game generated after the first free game and in response to the first condition being satisfied, the second free game also including a second free hand of cards and an associated second multiplier to apply to any awards associated with the second free game, the second multiplier being greater than the first multiplier, as Bigelow explicitly teaches each subsequent free game is associated with a higher multiplier than a previous free game).
Accordingly, those skilled in the art would have found it prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have created an obvious variant of Bigelow, as Bigelow explicitly indicates would be well within the scope of their disclosure, in which the concept of incremental multipliers is applied to different types of well-established wagering games, including poker games, such as the poker game disclosed by Parker. Similarly, it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Moody to create a dynamic variant in which different quantities of free games are provided based on the specificity of the underlying triggering event, such that certain base game outcomes are associated with higher or lower quantities of free games than other base game outcomes as set forth by a predetermined reference table. Therefore, the combination Bigelow, Parker, & Moody makes obvious the invention as claimed.
Regarding claims 15 & 19, the functionality detailed above is equally obvious to be implemented via a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions that facilitate said functionality, the functionality being interpreted as a computer-implemented method utilizing the electronic gaming system.
Claims 2 & 20: The combination of Bigelow, Parker, & Moody further discloses functionality to:
generate the base game outcome in response to a wager received from a player by the electronic gaming system (i.e. in both Bigelow and Parker, as is commonplace in wagering games of the type detailed by each disclosure, a player wagers via one or more input devices associated with the electronic gaming system to generate the base game; e.g. Bigelow, paragraph 0047);
determine that an amount of the wager satisfies a second condition to trigger the free games feature (i.e. Bigelow, at paragraph 0047, similarly discloses the free games feature may be based upon the player’s wager, e.g. the number of free spins based on a size of wager, or the like, as is commonplace in the art, where it is well-established that certain bonus events only trigger when a player is placing a maximum wager); and
in response to both the first condition and the second condition being satisfied, generate the first free game outcome of the free games feature and, subsequently, the second free game outcome of the free games feature (i.e. as discussed above, the free games feature is initiated in response to the player’s wager and the triggering event).
Claims 4 & 17: The combination of Bigelow, Parker, & Moody further discloses functionality to, in response to the first condition being satisfied and after the first free game outcome and the second free game outcome, generate a third free game outcome of the free games feature that includes display of a third free hand of cards, wherein a third multiplier is applied to an award associated with the third free game, the third multiplier being greater than the first multiplier and the second multiplier (e.g. essentially the same as above with respect to the first free game outcome and the second free game outcome, in this obvious variant resulting from the combination, in association with a third free game outcome of the free games feature, the third free game outcome generated after the first free game, the second free game, and in response to the triggering event or first condition being satisfied, the third free game outcome also including a third free hand of cards and an associated third multiplier to apply to any awards associated with the third free game outcome, the third multiplier being greater than the first multiplier and second multipliers, as Bigelow explicitly teaches each subsequent free game is associated with a higher multiplier than a previous free games; see figures 3A-5D of Bigelow as exemplary incremental multiplier concept illustrations).
Claims 5 & 6: The combination of Bigelow, Parker, & Moody further discloses functionality substantially similar to the process of randomly selecting the third multiplier from a group of multipliers, each multiplier of the group of multipliers being greater than the first multiplier and the second multiplier. That is, Bigelow discloses various disclosure directed to randomly determining subsequent multiplier, including one in which masked selections may be provided to a player from which the player selects the next multiplier (e.g. paragraphs 0016, 0021-0023). Based on the Bigelow disclosure, a person skilled in the art would have it a prima facie obvious matter to explicitly select each subsequent multiplier by random selection from a group of multipliers that include one or more multipliers higher than any previously utilized multiplier during the free games feature, to maintain the concept of incremental multipliers associated with each subsequent free game in the free games feature of the Bigelow, Parker, & Moody combination. Regarding claim 6, the same rationale applies to randomly selecting the second multiplier from a group of multipliers, each multiplier of the group of multipliers being greater than the first multiplier.
Claims 7, 8, & 18: The combination of Bigelow, Parker, & Moody further discloses that the base game outcome includes display of a base hand of cards randomly selected from a first deck of cards, and functionality to determine at least one held card and at least one discarded card in the base hand of cards based on a player selection received by the electronic gaming system, discard the at least one discarded card from the base hand of cards, and complete the base hand of cards after the at least one discarded card is discarded with an equal number of one or more cards randomly selected from the first deck of cards (e.g. Parker discloses how conventional draw-poker games operate, in which cards are dealt for the base hand, such as from a first deck of cards, a player is enabled to select which cards are hold and which cards are discarded, replacing discarded cards with an equal number of replacement cards, and generating a completed hand for the poker game – see Parker, figures 1A-1J and paragraphs 0029-0035). In addition, the combination of Bigelow, Parker, & Moody further discloses functionality to cause display of the at least one held card in at least one additional hand of cards during the base game (e.g. Parker, figure 1B) and complete the at least one additional hand of cards with one or more cards selected from at least one second deck of cards, wherein, for each of the at least one additional hand of cards, a number of the one or more cards selected from the at least one second deck of cards is equal to the number of the one or more cards selected from the first deck of cards to complete the base hand of cards after the at least one discarded card is discarded (see Parker, figures 1A-1J and paragraphs 0029-0035, noting that Parker disclose replacing the same number of discarded cards in the one or more additional hands, which may be from different decks).
Claims 9 & 10: The combination of Bigelow, Parker, & Moody discloses the invention substantially as claimed including that the obvious variant detailed above would provide the number of free games of the free games feature as free games of the same underlying base game, as Bigelow teaches. In said obvious variant incorporating the Bigelow concept to poker games, the underlying base game involves at least one base hand and one or more additional hands in which held cards from the base hand are replicated to ultimately provide the player with plural complete final hands from which the player could earn an award (Parker, figures 1A-1J and paragraphs 0029-0035). Accordingly, in this obvious variant, a skilled artisan would have possessed the common knowledge and routine skill to implement the free games to include the first free game outcome displaying of a number of first free hands of cards equal to a number of the base hand of cards and the at least one additional hand of cards displayed during the base game, wherein the first multiplier is applied to an award associated with any of the first free hands of cards, and the second free game outcome includes display of a number of second free hands of cards equal to the number of the base hand of cards and the at least one additional hand of cards displayed during the base game, wherein the second multiplier is applied to an award associated with any of the second free hands of cards. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to have further implemented the obvious variant in the manner claimed given the specifics of Parker’s poker game and ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 11: The combination of Bigelow, Parker, & Moody discloses functionality to determine that the base hand of cards includes the at least one winning card combination that satisfies the first condition to trigger the free games feature (i.e. the triggering event discussed above is one or more particular types of winning combinations in the base hand of cards, e.g. in Moody “Jacks or Better” to trigger determination of a number of free games).
Claim 12: The combination of Bigelow, Parker, & Moody discloses that the first condition is a predefined set of winning card combinations including at least a first winning card combination and a second winning card combination, the first winning card combination being associated with a first set of free games generated during the free games feature, the second winning card combination being associated with a second set of free games generated during the free games feature, each of the first set and the second set of free games including at least the first free game outcome and the second free game outcome, the second set of free games having a greater number of free games than the first set of free games (e.g. essentially the teachings of Moody discussed above with respect to claims 1, 15, & 19, wherein different win categories are associated with different quantities of free games – see Table 2 of Moody).
Claim 13: The combination of Bigelow, Parker, & Moody further discloses that the first set of free games includes a third free game generated during the free games feature after the second free game outcome is generated, the third free game including display of a third free hand of cards, wherein a third multiplier is applied to an award associated with the third free game, the third multiplier being greater than the first multiplier and the second multiplier (e.g. see discussion above with respect to claims 4 & 17); and the second set of free games includes a fourth free game generated during the free games feature after the second free game, the fourth free game including display of a fourth free hand of cards, wherein a fourth multiplier is applied to an award associated with the fourth free game, and a fifth free game generated during the free games feature after the fourth free game, the fifth free game including display of a fifth free hand of cards, wherein a fifth multiplier is applied to an award associated with the fifth free game, the fourth multiplier being greater than the first and second multipliers and the fifth multiplier being greater than the first, second, third, and fourth multipliers (e.g. essentially the same as discussed a number of times above, each subsequent free game of the free games feature as taught by Bigelow, and within the obvious variant of this Bigelow, Parker, & Moody combination, each subsequent free game includes one or more free hands of cards associated with a multiplier higher than a previous free game in the number of free games).
Claim 14: The combination of Bigelow, Parker, & Moody further makes obvious that the third multiplier is randomly selected from a first group of multipliers each greater than the first and second multipliers, the fourth multiplier is randomly selected from a second group of multipliers each greater than the first and second multipliers, and the fifth multiplier is randomly selected from a third group of multipliers each greater than the first, second, third, and fourth multipliers (e.g. see discussion and rationale above with respect to claim 5 & 6, equally applied to claim 14 with respect to the third, fourth and fifth multipliers).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed October 10, 2025 with respect to the previously presented 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection are persuasive in light amendments presented to at least independent claims 1, 15, & 19. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed October 10, 2025 with respect to the previously presented 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of Bigelow in view of Parker have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration and in light of the claim amendments, a new grounds of rejection is made applying Bigelow in view of Park & Moody, as set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited (PTO-892).
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 MILAP SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-1723. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30-6PM.
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, KANG HU can be reached at 571-270-1344. 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.
/MILAP SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715