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 .
Preliminary Amendment
After the amendments filed 01/16/2026, claims 41-60 remain pending, of which, 41 and 59-60 were amended.
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 41-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed to at least one of abstract idea groupings, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines (Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity). Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
More specifically, regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a system and/or process, which is are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A-1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 recites the following, with the abstract ideas highlighted in bold, including an indication as to the abstract idea grouping(s) to which the indicated limitations belong to, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines. Independent claims 59 and 60, having substantially similar features, were also analyzed and to which the following conclusion is also applicable:
41. A non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions that when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to perform operations for providing non-predictable award outcomes, the operations comprising:
presenting a first phase display including a graphical user interface for activating an intermediate outcome generator (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
receiving a request, via the graphical user interface, to provide an intermediate outcome, wherein the intermediate outcome includes a plurality of variables from which an award is non-predictable (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
presenting a second phase display associated with an engine for implementing the intermediate outcome (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
feeding the plurality of variables of the intermediate outcome into the engine to generate a subsequent outcome (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
presenting the subsequent outcome in the second phase display (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity); and
revealing, in the second phase display, a previously hidden award in a location of the second phase display corresponding to the subsequent outcome (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity).
The limitations in claim 1 (as well as claim(s) 59 and 60) recite an abstract idea included in the groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, connected to technology only through application thereof using generic computing elements (e.g., a computer readable medium, a processor, etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity.
According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines:
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include:
1. Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices (including hedging (i.e., wagering), insurance, mitigating risk);
2. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
3. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The interaction encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping.
Specifically, the instant claims include functions/limitations, as highlighted in the independent claim above, that constitute at least:
A. Wagering (e.g., “receiving a request, via the graphical user interface, to provide an intermediate outcome, wherein the intermediate outcome includes a plurality of variables from which an award is non-predictable”, in light of applicant' s specification, a request to provide an intermediate outcome, as claimed above, is interpreted as including placement of a wager provided by a player (See Specification ¶193 )), which is a form of hedging, which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices. These limitations are interpreted as at least Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims.
B. Formation of a gambling contract (i.e., by a player placing a wager the player is entering into a contract with a game operator), which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Commercial or Legal Interactions. These limitations are interpreted as at least Commercial or Legal Interactions insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the Commercial or Legal Interactions while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims; and/or
C. Following rules and/or instructions, such as including the functions related to the playing of a game, which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People. These sets of rules are interpreted as at least certain methods of organized human activity insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing or following the set of rules or instructions concerning a game while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in the claims.
Regarding dependent claims 42-58:
Each claim is dependent either directly or indirectly from the independent claim identified above and includes all the limitations of said independent claim. Therefore, each dependent claim recites the same abstract idea as identified above. Each of the dependent claim further describes additional aspects of the abstract idea, i.e., additional aspects to the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. For example, some dependent claims merely provide additional Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity to be performed and/or additional insignificant extra-solution activity, without anything more significant to establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A-2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 41-60 clearly do not improve the functioning of a computer, as they only incorporate generic computing elements, do not effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Similarly, there is no improvement to a technical field. In addition the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way. The claimed invention does not suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer components are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of “a computer readable medium, a processor”, etc. used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility. These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer,’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Further, the claims would require structure that is beyond generic, such as structure that can be interpreted analogous to a general purpose structure and general purpose computing elements in that they represent well-understood, routine, conventional elements that do not add significantly more to the claims. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. The elements of a computer readable medium and a processor are well known conventional devices used to electronically implement a game as evidence by U.S. 2004/0204228, which discloses that a conventional gaming machine comprises elements such as a computer readable medium and a processor to control the overall operation of the gaming machine (¶58). See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The dependent claims do not add “significantly more” for at least the same reasons as directed to their respective independent claims, at least based on the position, as discussed above, that each of the dependent claims merely provide additional limitations to further expand the abstract idea of the independent claims, without adding anything which would establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Consequently, consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 41-60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cannon (U.S. 2005/0059471) in view of Lemay et al (U.S. 2002/0010018).
Regarding claims 41, 57-59 and 60, Cannon discloses:
a non-transitory computer readable medium containing instruction that when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to perform operations for providing non-predictable award outcomes (¶65), the operations comprising:
presenting a first phase display including a graphical user interface (¶57-58, ¶63-64, gaming unit 20 includes display 70 which is implemented as a touch-sensitive screen which is actuated by a player to select games, make wagers, make game decisions, etc. using buttons 72-82 of control panel 66) for activating an intermediate outcome generator (¶57-58, ¶62-64, display unit 70 displays an alternate presentation of the outcome of a bingo game in form of another casino game such as a slot game, wherein the player is able to cause the reels of the slot game to spin by activating Play/Daub button 82);
receiving a request, via the graphical user interface, to provide an intermediate outcome (¶62-63, the player places a wager and activates Play/Daub button 82 to cause the reels of the alternate presentation game to spin), wherein the intermediate outcome includes a plurality of variables (¶158, reel symbols 545) from which an award is non-predictable (¶62-63, ¶156, the outcome of the slot game does not determine the outcome of the bingo game (i.e., the final award is based on the bingo game, therefore the outcome of the reels are non-predictable of the actual award associated with the bingo game)); and
presenting a second phase display (¶57, display unit 68 displays a multiplayer bingo game).
However, Cannon does not specifically disclose that:
the second phase display is associated with an engine for implementing the intermediate outcome;
feeding the plurality of variables of the intermediate outcome into the engine to generate a subsequent outcome;
presenting the subsequent outcome in the second phase display; or
revealing, in the second phase display, a previously hidden award in a location of the second phase display corresponding to the subsequent outcome.
Lemay teaches:
a gaming system (¶27), including a first phase display for generating an intermediate outcome (¶27, Fig. 3, a main game 326 which is activated upon placement of a wager), and a second phase display (¶27-29, Fig. 3, bonus game 322), wherein the second phase display implements intermediate outcomes fed from the first phase display to generate a subsequent outcome (¶29, Fig. 3, symbols generated in the main game causes a marker on bonus game 322 to advance along a path 328a-328p), presenting the subsequent outcome in the second phase display (¶29, Fig. 3, the marker is shown to move along the path based on the symbols generated in the main game), and revealing, in the second phase display, a previously hidden award in a location of the second phase display corresponding to the subsequent outcome (¶27-29, Fig. 3, awards are provided based on the marker landing or passing through an intermediate bonus symbol or based on the marker reaching the end of the path).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the bonus path game which is fed a plurality of variables from a first game to generate outcomes, as taught by Lemay, into the gaming system as taught by Cannon, in order to provide a more engaging and interactive gaming experience for players, leading to more frequent and longer plays, thereby increasing profits for game operators.
Regarding claim 42, Cannon discloses that which is discussed above, however, does not specifically disclose that:
the subsequent outcome is the award.
Lemay teaches:
a gaming system (¶27), including a first phase display for generating an intermediate outcome (¶27, Fig. 3, a main game 326 which is activated upon placement of a wager), and a second phase display (¶27-29, Fig. 3, bonus game 322), wherein the second phase display implements intermediate outcomes fed from the first phase display to generate a subsequent outcome (¶29, Fig. 3, symbols generated in the main game causes a marker on bonus game 322 to advance along a path 328a-328p), and wherein the subsequent outcome is the award (¶27-29, Fig. 3, awards are provided based on the marker landing or passing through an intermediate bonus symbol or based on the marker reaching the end of the path (i.e., the final position of the marker directly results in the award)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the bonus path game which is fed a plurality of variables from a first game to generate outcomes, as taught by Lemay, into the gaming system as taught by Cannon, in order to provide a more engaging and interactive gaming experience for players, leading to more frequent and longer plays, thereby increasing profits for game operators.
Regarding claim 43, Cannon discloses that which is discussed above, however, does not specifically disclose that:
the subsequent outcome is used to reveal the award.
Lemay teaches:
a gaming system (¶27), including a first phase display for generating an intermediate outcome (¶27, Fig. 3, a main game 326 which is activated upon placement of a wager), and a second phase display (¶27-29, Fig. 3, bonus game 322), wherein the second phase display implements intermediate outcomes fed from the first phase display to generate a subsequent outcome (¶29, Fig. 3, symbols generated in the main game causes a marker on bonus game 322 to advance along a path 328a-328p), and wherein the subsequent outcome is used to reveal the award (¶27-29, Fig. 3, awards are revealed based on the marker landing or passing through an intermediate bonus symbol or based on the marker reaching the end of the path).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the bonus path game which is fed a plurality of variables from a first game to generate outcomes, as taught by Lemay, into the gaming system as taught by Cannon, in order to provide a more engaging and interactive gaming experience for players, leading to more frequent and longer plays, thereby increasing profits for game operators.
Regarding claim 44, Cannon discloses that which is discussed above, however, does not specifically disclose that:
the second phase display includes a multidimensional map, wherein the plurality of variables generated by the intermediate outcome are directionality indicators, and wherein during feeding, the directionality indicators are applied to the multidimensional map to cause a character to move on the multidimensional map in accordance with the directionality indicators.
Lemay teaches:
a gaming system (¶27), including a first phase display for generating an intermediate outcome (¶27, Fig. 3, a main game 326 which is activated upon placement of a wager), and a second phase display (¶27-29, Fig. 3, bonus game 322), wherein the second phase display implements intermediate outcomes fed from the first phase display to generate a subsequent outcome (¶29, Fig. 3, symbols generated in the main game causes a marker on bonus game 322 to advance along a path 328a-328p), wherein the second phase display includes a multidimensional map (Fig. 3, bonus game 322 including path 328a-328p), wherein the plurality of variables generated by the intermediate outcome are directionality indicators (¶28-29, game symbols (i.e., variables) generated during the main game include positive value symbols which advance the marker in a positive direction toward the end of the path and negative value symbols which move the marker in a direction away from the end of the path), and wherein during feeding, the directionality indicators are applied to the multidimensional map to cause a character to move on the multidimensional map in accordance with the directionality indicators (¶29, Fig. 3, symbols generated in the main game causes a marker on bonus game 322 to advance along a path 328a-328p).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the bonus path game which is fed a plurality of variables from a first game to generate outcomes, as taught by Lemay, into the gaming system as taught by Cannon, in order to provide a more engaging and interactive gaming experience for players, leading to more frequent and longer plays, thereby increasing profits for game operators.
Regarding claim 45, Cannon discloses that which is discussed above, however, does not specifically disclose that:
the multidimensional map includes at least one space associated with the award, or the award is revealed when the character lands on the at least one space.
Lemay teaches:
a gaming system (¶27), including a first phase display for generating an intermediate outcome (¶27, Fig. 3, a main game 326 which is activated upon placement of a wager), and a second phase display (¶27-29, Fig. 3, bonus game 322), wherein the second phase display implements intermediate outcomes fed from the first phase display to generate a subsequent outcome (¶29, Fig. 3, symbols generated in the main game causes a marker on bonus game 322 to advance along a path 328a-328p), wherein the second phase display includes a multidimensional map (Fig. 3, bonus game 322 including path 328a-328p), wherein the multidimensional map includes at least one space associated with the award (¶28-29, the path includes intermediate award spaces (e.g., 328d, 328j, 328m) and an end space (328p) each of which are associated with awards for landing or passing through the respective spaces), and wherein the award is revealed when the character lands on the at least one space (¶27-29, Fig. 3, awards are provided based on the marker landing or passing through an intermediate bonus symbol or based on the marker reaching the end of the path).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the bonus path game which is fed a plurality of variables from a first game to generate outcomes, as taught by Lemay, into the gaming system as taught by Cannon, in order to provide a more engaging and interactive gaming experience for players, leading to more frequent and longer plays, thereby increasing profits for game operators.
Regarding claim 46, Cannon discloses that which is discussed above, however, does not specifically disclose that:
a combination of the directionality indicators indicates both direction and distance.
Lemay teaches:
a gaming system (¶27), including a first phase display for generating an intermediate outcome (¶27, Fig. 3, a main game 326 which is activated upon placement of a wager), and a second phase display (¶27-29, Fig. 3, bonus game 322), wherein the second phase display implements intermediate outcomes fed from the first phase display to generate a subsequent outcome (¶29, Fig. 3, symbols generated in the main game causes a marker on bonus game 322 to advance along a path 328a-328p), wherein the second phase display includes a multidimensional map (Fig. 3, bonus game 322 including path 328a-328p), wherein the plurality of variables generated by the intermediate outcome are directionality indicators (¶28-29, game symbols (i.e., variables) generated during the main game include positive value symbols which advance the marker in a positive direction toward the end of the path and negative value symbols which move the marker in a direction away from the end of the path), and wherein during feeding, the directionality indicators are applied to the multidimensional map to cause a character to move on the multidimensional map in accordance with the directionality indicators (¶29, Fig. 3, symbols generated in the main game causes a marker on bonus game 322 to advance along a path 328a-328p), and wherein a combination of the directionality indicators indicates both direction and distance (¶28-29, Fig. 3, for example bonus advancement values 332a, 332b, which cause the marker to move in a positive direction by a number of spaces associated with each symbol).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the bonus path game which is fed a plurality of variables from a first game to generate outcomes, as taught by Lemay, into the gaming system as taught by Cannon, in order to provide a more engaging and interactive gaming experience for players, leading to more frequent and longer plays, thereby increasing profits for game operators.
Regarding claim 47, Cannon discloses that which is discussed above, however, does not specifically disclose that:
each of the directionality indicators is presented on a differing icon.
Lemay teaches:
a gaming system (¶27), including a first phase display for generating an intermediate outcome (¶27, Fig. 3, a main game 326 which is activated upon placement of a wager), and a second phase display (¶27-29, Fig. 3, bonus game 322), wherein the second phase display implements intermediate outcomes fed from the first phase display to generate a subsequent outcome (¶29, Fig. 3, symbols generated in the main game causes a marker on bonus game 322 to advance along a path 328a-328p), wherein the second phase display includes a multidimensional map (Fig. 3, bonus game 322 including path 328a-328p), wherein the plurality of variables generated by the intermediate outcome are directionality indicators (¶28-29, game symbols (i.e., variables) generated during the main game include positive value symbols which advance the marker in a positive direction toward the end of the path and negative value symbols which move the marker in a direction away from the end of the path), and wherein each of the directionality indicators is presented on a differing icon (Fig. 3, reference characters 332a, 332b, 338, 336).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the bonus path game which is fed a plurality of variables from a first game to generate outcomes, as taught by Lemay, into the gaming system as taught by Cannon, in order to provide a more engaging and interactive gaming experience for players, leading to more frequent and longer plays, thereby increasing profits for game operators.
Regarding claim 48, Cannon discloses that which is discussed above, however, does not specifically disclose that:
each of the directionality indicators is presented on a same icon.
Lemay teaches:
a gaming system (¶27), including a first phase display for generating an intermediate outcome (¶27, Fig. 3, a main game 326 which is activated upon placement of a wager), and a second phase display (¶27-29, Fig. 3, bonus game 322), wherein the second phase display implements intermediate outcomes fed from the first phase display to generate a subsequent outcome (¶29, Fig. 3, symbols generated in the main game causes a marker on bonus game 322 to advance along a path 328a-328p), wherein the second phase display includes a multidimensional map (Fig. 3, bonus game 322 including path 328a-328p), wherein the plurality of variables generated by the intermediate outcome are directionality indicators (¶28-29, game symbols (i.e., variables) generated during the main game include positive value symbols which advance the marker in a positive direction toward the end of the path and negative value symbols which move the marker in a direction away from the end of the path). Although Lemay does not specifically disclose that each of the directionality indicators is presented on a same icon, where the only difference between the prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter, that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art (See MPEP 2111.05). Therefore, this limitation, which is drawn to non-functional printed matter, is not afforded patentable weight.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the bonus path game which is fed a plurality of variables from a first game to generate outcomes, as taught by Lemay, into the gaming system as taught by Cannon, in order to provide a more engaging and interactive gaming experience for players, leading to more frequent and longer plays, thereby increasing profits for game operators.
Regarding claim 49, Cannon discloses that which is discussed above, however, does not specifically disclose that:
each of the directionality indicators represents a cardinal direction.
Lemay teaches:
a gaming system (¶27), including a first phase display for generating an intermediate outcome (¶27, Fig. 3, a main game 326 which is activated upon placement of a wager), and a second phase display (¶27-29, Fig. 3, bonus game 322), wherein the second phase display implements intermediate outcomes fed from the first phase display to generate a subsequent outcome (¶29, Fig. 3, symbols generated in the main game causes a marker on bonus game 322 to advance along a path 328a-328p), wherein the second phase display includes a multidimensional map (Fig. 3, bonus game 322 including path 328a-328p), wherein the plurality of variables generated by the intermediate outcome are directionality indicators (¶28-29, game symbols (i.e., variables) generated during the main game include positive value symbols which advance the marker in a positive direction toward the end of the path and negative value symbols which move the marker in a direction away from the end of the path), and wherein each of the directionality indicators represents a cardinal direction (¶28-29, Fig. 3, for example bonus advancement values 332a, 332b, which cause the marker to move in a positive direction towards the end of the path space 328p and negative values 338, which cause the marker to move in a negative direction away from end of the path space 328p, the examiner interprets positive direction values to represent a north, east or west direction (dependent of the current location of the marker), and the negative direction values to represent a south, east or west direction (dependent of the current location of the marker)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the bonus path game which is fed a plurality of variables from a first game to generate outcomes, as taught by Lemay, into the gaming system as taught by Cannon, in order to provide a more engaging and interactive gaming experience for players, leading to more frequent and longer plays, thereby increasing profits for game operators.
Regarding claim 50, Cannon discloses that which is discussed above, however, does not specifically disclose that:
each of the directionality indicators represents at least one of a forward direction, a reverse direction, a right direction, and a left direction.
Lemay teaches:
a gaming system (¶27), including a first phase display for generating an intermediate outcome (¶27, Fig. 3, a main game 326 which is activated upon placement of a wager), and a second phase display (¶27-29, Fig. 3, bonus game 322), wherein the second phase display implements intermediate outcomes fed from the first phase display to generate a subsequent outcome (¶29, Fig. 3, symbols generated in the main game causes a marker on bonus game 322 to advance along a path 328a-328p), wherein the second phase display includes a multidimensional map (Fig. 3, bonus game 322 including path 328a-328p), wherein the plurality of variables generated by the intermediate outcome are directionality indicators (¶28-29, game symbols (i.e., variables) generated during the main game include positive value symbols which advance the marker in a positive direction toward the end of the path and negative value symbols which move the marker in a direction away from the end of the path), wherein each of the directionality indicators represents at least one of a forward direction and a reverse direction (¶28-29, Fig. 3, for example bonus advancement values 332a, 332b, which cause the marker to move in a positive direction towards the end of the path space 328p (i.e., a forward direction) and negative values 338, which cause the marker to move in a negative direction away from end of the path space 328p (i.e., a reverse direction)), and wherein each of the directionality indicators represents at least one of a right direction and a left direction (¶28-29, Fig. 3, for example bonus advancement values 332a, 332b, which causes the marker to move from the starting space 328a to intermediate space 328b (i.e., in a rightward direction) and negative values 338, which cause the marker to move from intermediate space 328b toward starting space 328a (i.e., in a leftward direction)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the bonus path game which is fed a plurality of variables from a first game to generate outcomes, as taught by Lemay, into the gaming system as taught by Cannon, in order to provide a more engaging and interactive gaming experience for players, leading to more frequent and longer plays, thereby increasing profits for game operators.
Regarding claim 51, Cannon discloses that which is discussed above, however, does not specifically disclose that:
the multidimensional map is constrained by a multidimensional map parameter and a multidimensional map element.
Lemay teaches:
a gaming system (¶27), including a first phase display for generating an intermediate outcome (¶27, Fig. 3, a main game 326 which is activated upon placement of a wager), and a second phase display (¶27-29, Fig. 3, bonus game 322), wherein the second phase display implements intermediate outcomes fed from the first phase display to generate a subsequent outcome (¶29, Fig. 3, symbols generated in the main game causes a marker on bonus game 322 to advance along a path 328a-328p), wherein the second phase display includes a multidimensional map (Fig. 3, bonus game 322 including path 328a-328p), wherein the multidimensional map is constrained by a multidimensional map parameter (¶28-29, Fig. 3, for example the map is constrained by the number of spaces available 328a-328p ) and a multidimensional map element (¶28-29, for example the map is constrained by intermediate prize spaces 328d, 328j, 328m).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the bonus path game which is fed a plurality of variables from a first game to generate outcomes, as taught by Lemay, into the gaming system as taught by Cannon, in order to provide a more engaging and interactive gaming experience for players, leading to more frequent and longer plays, thereby increasing profits for game operators.
Regarding claim 52, Cannon discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the graphical user interface is a virtual slot machine (¶57-58, ¶62-64, display unit 70 displays an alternate presentation of the outcome of a bingo game in form of another casino game such as a slot game, wherein the player is able to cause the reels of the slot game to spin by activating Play/Daub button 82).
Regarding claim 53, Cannon discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the intermediate outcome generator includes a random number generator (¶161, gaming unit 20 randomly selects a combination of reel stop positions).
Regarding claim 54, Cannon discloses that which is discussed above, however, does not specifically disclose that:
the intermediate outcome in the first phase is a function of a character location on a multidimensional map in the second phase.
Lemay teaches:
a gaming system (¶27), including a first phase display for generating an intermediate outcome (¶27, Fig. 3, a main game 326 which is activated upon placement of a wager), and a second phase display (¶27-29, Fig. 3, bonus game 322), wherein the second phase display implements intermediate outcomes fed from the first phase display to generate a subsequent outcome (¶29, Fig. 3, symbols generated in the main game causes a marker on bonus game 322 to advance along a path 328a-328p), wherein the second phase display includes a multidimensional map (Fig. 3, bonus game 322 including path 328a-328p), wherein the intermediate outcome in the first phase is a function of a character location on a multidimensional map in the second phase (¶30, ¶33, for example upon landing on a “bust” symbol causes the game to end (i.e., the intermediate outcomes are no longer generated based on the marker’s location on the map being a “bust” symbol)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the bonus path game which is fed a plurality of variables from a first game to generate outcomes, as taught by Lemay, into the gaming system as taught by Cannon, in order to provide a more engaging and interactive gaming experience for players, leading to more frequent and longer plays, thereby increasing profits for game operators.
Regarding claim 55, Cannon discloses that which is discussed above, however, does not specifically disclose that:
the intermediate outcome is a random directionality outcome.
Lemay teaches:
a gaming system (¶27), including a first phase display for generating an intermediate outcome (¶27, Fig. 3, a main game 326 which is activated upon placement of a wager), and a second phase display (¶27-29, Fig. 3, bonus game 322), wherein the second phase display implements intermediate outcomes fed from the first phase display to generate a subsequent outcome (¶29, Fig. 3, symbols generated in the main game causes a marker on bonus game 322 to advance along a path 328a-328p), wherein the second phase display includes a multidimensional map (Fig. 3, bonus game 322 including path 328a-328p), wherein the intermediate outcome is a random directionality outcome (¶28-29, game symbols (i.e., variables) generated during the main game include positive value symbols which advance the marker in a positive direction toward the end of the path and negative value symbols which move the marker in a direction away from the end of the path).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the bonus path game which is fed a plurality of variables from a first game to generate outcomes, as taught by Lemay, into the gaming system as taught by Cannon, in order to provide a more engaging and interactive gaming experience for players, leading to more frequent and longer plays, thereby increasing profits for game operators.
Regarding claim 56, Cannon discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
receiving the request includes at least one of an assurance (¶57-58, ¶63-64, placement of a wager to activate the game) and a user input (¶57-58, ¶62-64, the player cause the reels of the slot game to spin by activating Play/Daub button 82).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 01/16/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Cannon does not disclose that the intermediate outcome includes a plurality of variables from which an award is non-predictable (See Remarks, pgs. 7-8). The examiner must respectfully disagree. Cannon discloses an intermediate outcome (¶158, alternative outcome display of a reel slot game), wherein the intermediate outcomes include a plurality of variables (¶158, reel symbols 545), and further that an award is not predictable from the plurality of variables (¶62-63, ¶156, the outcome of the slot game does not determine the outcome of the bingo game (i.e., the final award is based on the bingo game, therefore the outcome of the reels are non-predictable of the actual award associated with the bingo game)).
Applicant argues that a single ball draw, as disclosed by Cannon, cannot include a plurality of variables, as claimed (See Remarks, pg. 8). The examiner must respectfully disagree. As discussed above, the bingo game, as disclosed by Cannon, is not the intermediate outcome, but rather, the slot machine game is the intermediate outcome generator which includes the plurality of variables (i.e., reel symbols).
Applicant argues that the awards of Cannon are not “unpredictable” (See Remarks, pg. 8). The examiner must respectfully disagree. Initially, the examiner notes that the instant claims do not require that the award be unpredictable, but rather, that a plurality of variables be included in the intermediate outcome “from which an award is non-predictable”. Cannon discloses that the outcome of the intermediate outcome (i.e., the slot machine game) does not determine the outcome of the bingo game (¶62-63, ¶156). Therefore, since the slot machine game outcome does not determine the outcome of the bingo game, the variables of the slot machine game would not allow for the prediction of an award in the bingo game.
The remainder of the applicant's arguments are substantially directed to newly added limitations. The Examiner respectfully submits that the prior art of record discloses these limitations, as discussed in the updated rejections as set forth above. Accordingly, the Applicant is directed to the rejection of the claims above for a detailed response to Applicant's arguments as to the applicability of the prior art.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 01/16/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are not drawn to one of the abstract idea groupings (See Remarks, pg. 10). The examiner must respectfully disagree. Contrary to applicant’s assertion, the instant claims are directed to an abstract idea. Specifically, the steps of “presenting a first phase display”, “receiving a request…to provide an intermediate outcome”, and “revealing an award” all are abstract ideas under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, specifically managing a game of chance and fundamental economic principles (i.e., wagering and awards).
Applicant argues that the claims are eligible because a gaming GUI does not fall into any of the categories of organizing human activity (See Remarks, pg. 10). The examiner must respectfully disagree. While the GUI itself is a technological tool, the content and purpose of the claimed GUI is directed to the abstract idea of managing a game of chance. Further, the GUI elements which are claimed are claimed at a high level of generality and are performing their well-understood, routine and conventional functions (i.e., presenting information and receiving input). Applicant has not claimed any improvement to the GUI or the rendering of graphics for the GUI, but rather, has claimed generic GUI features to display results related to a wagering game. Merely implementing an abstract idea, using generic computer components (e.g., a generic GUI) does not render a claim eligible without additional elements which amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Applicant argues that since the claims do not specifically recite placing a wager, the claims are not directed to a any fundamental economic principles or commercial interactions (See Remarks, pgs. 10-11). The examiner must respectfully disagree. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim terms must be interpreted in view of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The specification explicitly defines the “request…to provide an intermediate outcome” as including an assurance (¶193). Applicant’s specification further defines an assurance as equivalent to a wager or bet (¶45). Furthermore, the disclose defines the awards of the subsequent outcomes as a benefit such as tokens, coins, credits, money, etc. (¶46). Therefore, interpreting the request and award, as claimed, in the context of a wagering game is not importing a limitation, but rather, giving the terms their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention solves a technical problem in the art (See Remarks, pgs. 10-11). The examiner must respectfully disagree. Repetitive games causing players to lose interest is not a technical problem. The claimed invention does not solve a problem that arises due to technology. Applicant may have an improved abstract idea that keeps players interest in a game. But the abstract idea does not solve a technical problem. And a new abstract idea, regardless of how great it is, is still an abstract idea. Abstract ideas are not patent-eligible without “significantly more.” In this case, Applicant has merely implemented an abstract idea using a generic computer. This is not considered to be “significantly more” than the abstract idea since the Supreme Court’s Alice decision was handed down.
Applicant argues that the instant claims are analogous to the claims of McRO and Trading Techs (See Remarks, pgs. 12-13). The examiner must respectfully disagree. In these cases, the court found eligibility because the claimed inventions solved problems "rooted in computer technology". As discussed above, applicant's invention is rooted in wagering games and their associated rules, not in the underlying computer infrastructure, and uses generic well-understood, routine, conventional elements that do not add significantly more to the claims. The instant claims do not provide any such improvement to the functioning of the computer system.
Applicant argues that the instant claims provide an improvement to computer game technology similar to the claims found allowable in Core Wireless Licensing SARLv LG Electronics (See Remarks, pg. 13). The examiner must respectfully disagree. The instant claims are not like those in Core Wireless. In that case, there was a technical problem having to do with the size of the display screen. The screen was too small to allow efficient use. The claims in Core Wireless provided specific improvements to the UI that solved this technical problem. Applicant’s claimed invention does not address any technical problems with EMG displays, nor do the claims provide any specific improvements to the UI design.
Applicant argues that the recitation of generic computer components, which are part of a generic computer, takes the claims out the realm of abstract ideas (See Remarks, pg. 15). The US Supreme Court and the CAFC have ruled over and over again that the mere recitation of generic computer components will not make the claims eligible without “significantly more.” Yes, Applicant does recite generic computer components performing certain steps. But the point of the rejection is that the steps could be performed by a person using pen and paper. Mere recitation of generic computer components will not rescue the claims.
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 JASON PINHEIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-1350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00A-4:30P ET.
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.
/Jason Pinheiro/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights