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 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 have been amended and no new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative traverses the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101. The Applicant’s representative argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A-prong 1 or represent a practical application into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2 because the claims recite improvements to the technology of electronic gaming and/or electronic gaming machines and particular improvements to a user interface for electronic devices that include activated symbol display positions and rules associated with detecting trigger conditions that are stored in a database to be able to quickly detect trigger conditions and storage of rules associated with determining which inactive symbol positions to unlock, and/or activating the unlocked, inactive symbol display positions (see Remarks, pg. 18-20). Specifically, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because i) under Step 2A-prong 1, the limitations of Claim 1, as a whole, are directed to improved storage of game logic, improved user interfaces of electronic games, and/or improved of control of game logic, improved user interfaces of electronic games, and/or improved control of display of symbols on a display device (e.g., based upon various specific RNG outputs and dedicated lookup tables (see Remarks, pg. 23-24); ii) under Step 2A-prong 2, the claims integrate the claim into a practical application because they represent a practical application of the execution and control of an electronic game (see Remarks, pg. 24-28); and iii) under Step 2B, the claims amount to significantly more for at least the reasons provided under Step 2A-prong 2 (see Remarks, pg. 28). Moreover, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims additional are eligible under ARP Decision that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize an improvement to other technology or a technical field of electronic gaming and/or user interfaces (see Remarks, pg. 29-32). The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons provided in the sections below.
With respect to the Applicant’s position that the claims are not directed to a grouping of abstract ideas but recite improvements to the technology of electronic gaming and/or electronic gaming machines. In particular, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims recite a user interface for electronic devices that includes an expanded game play area including activated symbol display positions and rules associated with detecting trigger conditions to be able to quickly detect trigger conditions and storage of rules associated with determining which inactive symbol display positions to unlock and/or activating the unlocked, inactive symbol positions in the database that improve accurate and timely execution and display of the electronic game (see Remarks, 18-20). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. A review of the cited portions of the Specification partly disclose storage of an expanded game play area and detecting trigger conditions but does not describe how the inventor intended to achieve the improvement to the electronic gaming and/or electronic gaming machines but merely invoke the electronic gaming machine as a tool, performing extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). Additionally, the Examiner maintains that certain methods of organizing human activity, such as managing a social activity (e.g., including rules and/or instructions), are analogous to rules and/or instructions with detecting trigger conditions, determining the display of inactive symbol positions to unlock/activate in an expanded display play area and timely execute the electronic game recites rules and/or instructions for managing the symbol game. It follows that the Applicant’s argument it not found to persuasive and maintained.
With respect to Step 2A-prong 1, the Applicant’s representative argues that as a whole the claim recite an “improved storage of game logic, improved user interfaces of electronic games, and/or improved control of display of symbols on a display device (e.g., based upon various specific RNG outputs and dedicated lookup tables)”. For instance, the Applicant’s representative argues that the recitations of a computer programmed to intentionally refrain from populating certain symbol positions, intentionally change a state of a symbol position, and store logic in a dedicated database for improved reaction to trigger conditions (see Remarks, pg. 22-24). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims, as noted above, are found to be directed to managing a game including rules of the game that refrain from populating certain symbol positions, change a state of a symbol in a symbol position of the game, and trigger conditions in the game. Moreover, the limitations when viewed as a whole, that include a computer programmed directed to intentionally refrain, intentionally change a state, and store logic in a dedicated database were found, as explained in Step 2A-prong 2 below, to recite merely invoke 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)) under the two-part Alice framework. Furthermore, the Applicant’s amendments which amend the game “rule” to game “logic” does change the analysis under Step 2A-prong 1 because game “logic” amounts to an instruction as opposed to a rule for managing the game. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection has been maintained below.
With respect to Step 2A-prong 2, the Applicant’s representative argues that even if the claims recite a judicial exception that are integrated into a practical application. Specifically, the Applicant’s respectfully submits that recitations of Claim 1 are directed to improved storage/application of game logic, improved user interfaces of electronic games, and/or improved control of display of symbols on a display device (e.g., based on various specific RNG outputs and dedicated lookup tables) across various modes of an electronic game that recites an improvement to technology (see Remarks, pg. 24-26). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. For instance, the Specification recites that the expanded game play area provides more opportunities for winning combination of symbols to be displayed during the bonus game mode, thereby (i) increasing the probability of winning an actual award amount, (ii) increasing player excitement and engagement with gaming machines, as the number of symbol display positions available for gameplay increases (see Specification, 0078-0079). Additionally, the portions of the Specification directed to different lookup tables disclose that lookup tables are used to determine how to populate the symbol display positions which is further directed to steps and/or instructions to manage the game. However, these are not indicative to an improvement to the technology of electronic gaming machines but to managing the expanded game play area of the expanded game play area of the bonus game mode which is analogous to managing the game. As such, the Examiner is not persuaded that the claimed elements recite an improvement to technology or provide an analogous reduced complexity as discussed in the Appeals Review Panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“ARP”) Decision but at best improvements to the abstract idea itself. It follows that the remaining limitations, as argued above, are not found to integrate the claim into a practical application but found to recite step and/or instructions for invoking an electronic gaming device, a display, a processor, and a random number generator amount to be used in their ordinary capacity in the electronic gaming arts. It follows that the additional limitations are found to recite mere instructions to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide technological environment in order to perform the abstract idea. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s representative arguments are not persuasive and maintained below.
With respect to Step 2A-prong 2, the Applicant’s representative maintains that for the reasons discussed above in Step 2A, the claims recite an improve storage/application of game logic, improve user interfaces of electronic games, and/or improve control of display of symbols on a display device (see Remarks, pg. 28). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The discussion above in Step 2A are incorporated herein and the arguments are not persuasive for substantially the same reasons as discussed above.
With respect to the additional basis for eligibility, the Applicant’s representative argues that the ARP decision, since made “precedential”, indicates that technical improvements that enable ‘reduced system complexity’ in connection with conveying game outcomes through various modes of an electronic games should be found to be a technical improvement (see Remarks, pg. 29-32. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. A review of the subject matter, in light of the ARP Decision, indicates that the instant claims are not analogous to a transformed machine learning model that reduced system complexity that was found to be patent eligible under the ARP decision. In contrast, the instant application is directed to managing a game including rules and/or instructions including use of RNG outputs and lookup tables that conforms with regulatory requirements associated with managing a wagering game such as a casino environment. Moreover, the recitation of the system and user interface have been found to merely arrange transactional information associated with the game and/or manage the game (e.g., RNG for random game events) using known gaming machine techniques to conform with regulatory requirements that further indicate that the claimed subject matter is not analogous to the patent eligible subject matter of the ARP decision. For at least these reasons, the claims are not found to recite additional limitations that are indicative of significantly more than the abstract idea 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 1-20 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 directed to a grouping of abstract ideas such as:
1. (currently amended) An electronic gaming device comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory with instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
execute, for a first mode of an electronic game, first mode logic configured to control short term persistence characteristics associated with one or more symbol positions of a grid matrix of the electronic game, the execution of the first mode logic including: - certain method of organizing human activity;
performing a first lookup in a first mode lookup table stored in the at least one memory to retrieve first symbol data to map a first output from a random number generator (RNG) to a game outcome for a play of the first mode;
causing one or more user interface (UI) outcomes corresponding to the first output to the first output to be displayed in association with display of the first mode game outcome, wherein the first mode game outcome includes populating a plurality of symbols in a first display area the grid matrix, the first display area including a first plurality of reels with corresponding first symbol positions, and wherein the first mode logic includes: -certain method of organizing human activity (including rules and instructions);
(i) trigger logic configured to track in the at least one memory, trigger data corresponding to whether a trigger condition has occurred in any given game instance of a designated amount of the first game mode; - certain method of organizing human activity (including rules and instructions);
(ii) counter logic configured to track, in the at least one memory, counter data generated by a counter initialized as part of the first mode logic, the counter data including (a) a count of how many game instances of the designated amount of game instances of the first mode have occurred and (b) an indication of when the count of the tracked game instances of the designated amount of game instances satisfies a threshold amount of game instances of the first mode; - certain method of organizing human activity (including rules and instructions); and
(iii) persistence logic configured to track, across each game instance of the designated amount of game instances of the first mode, and in the at least one memory, first state data corresponding to a state of one or more inactive symbol positions within a second display area of the grid matrix, each of the one or more inactive symbol positions corresponding to a respective tracked trigger condition and being configured to have its state changed to be unlocked and activated for a play of a second mode of the electronic game; - certain method of organizing human activity (including rules and instructions); and
controlling and causing, based on each of the tracked trigger data, the tracked counter data, and the tracked first state data, display of an unlocked, inactive symbol position for each tracked trigger condition in each tracked game instance where each respective tracked trigger condition occurred in the second display area, the second display area including a set of reels associated with a portion of the first plurality of reels of the first display area; -certain method of organizing human activity;
execute, for the second mode of the electronic game, and based on a determination that the threshold amount of game instances is satisfied, second mode logic configured to activate and populate each unlocked, inactive symbol position resulting from the first game outcome, the execution of the second mode logic including: - certain method of organizing human activity;
performing a second lookup in a second mode lookup table stored in the at least one memory to retrieve second symbol data to map a second output from the RNG to a game outcome for a play of the second mode;
causing one or more second mode UI outcomes corresponding to the second output to be displayed in association with display of the second mode game outcome, wherein the second mode game outcome includes evaluating the first state data to change the state of each unlocked, inactive symbol position in the second display area as an active symbol position in the second mode, and wherein the second mode logic includes select symbol logic and display logic;
executing a mapping process to map each active symbol position to a corresponding reel of the set of reels; -certain method of organizing human activity (including rules and instructions);
randomly determining a symbol for display in each active symbol position in accordance with select symbol logic; -certain method of organizing human activity; and
controlling and causing, based on the one or more second mode UI outcomes, display of each respective randomly determined symbol at the corresponding active symbol position in accordance with the display logic, wherein a sum of the first symbol positions and each symbol position of the second display area occupied by a respective randomly determined symbol corresponds to an expanded amount of symbol positions for a game instance of the second mode in accordance with a result of the mapping process, and wherein the first mode logic and the second mode logic are stored in a database associated with the at least one processor such that the first mode logic can detect trigger conditions that occur during the first mode and such that a UI of the electronic game is updated to reflect an unlocked, inactive symbol position displayed in the first mode being activated and populated with a randomly determined symbol in the second mode via an expanded game play area comprising the first and second display areas. -certain method of organizing human activity;
evaluate second electronic game data against second electronic game logic stored in the at least one memory that is associated with changing the state of the one or more inactive symbol positions by activating each unlocked, inactive symbol position in the second display area as an active symbol position in the second electronic game, wherein the second electronic game logic includes a select symbol rule and a display rule; - certain method of organizing human activity;
executing a mapping process to map each active symbol position to a corresponding reel of the set of reels; - certain method of organizing human activity;
randomly determining a symbol for display in each active symbol position in accordance with the select symbol logic; -certain method of organizing human activity; and
controlling and causing, based on the one or more second mode UI outcomes, display of each respective randomly determined symbol at the corresponding active symbol position in accordance with the display logic, wherein a sum of the first symbol positions and each symbol position of the second display area occupied by a respective randomly determined symbol corresponds to an expanded amount of symbol positions for a game instance of the second mode in accordance with a result of the mapping process, and wherein the first mode logic and the second mode logic are stored in a database associated with the at least one processor such that the first mode logic can detect trigger conditions that occur during the first mode and such that a UI of the electronic game is updated to reflect an unlocked, inactive symbol position displayed in the first mode being activated and populated with a randomly determined symbol in the second mode via an expanded game play area comprising the first and second display areas – certain method of organizing human activity.
The limitations, as underlined above, are found to recite steps for managing an electronic symbol game including rules and/or instructions which is indicative of a certain method of organizing human activity. For instance, the claims describe “game logic” which is analogous to rules and/or instructions for managing the game. For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, recite a grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A-prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining limitations such as: “an electronic gaming device comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory with instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:” “performing a first lookup in a first mode lookup table stored in the at least one memory to retrieve first symbol data to map a first output from a random number generator (RNG) to a game outcome for a play of the first mode;” and “stored in the at least one memory” and “performing a second lookup in a second mode lookup table stored in the at least one memory to retrieve second symbol data to map a second output from the RNG to a game outcome for a play of the second mode;” are found to recite a step and/or series of instructions to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, perform insignificant extra solution activity of the abstract idea, 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 of the claims 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 at least one processor in communication with at least one memory with instructions stores thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:” and “a random number generator (RNG)” when viewed individually and/or as a combination of elements, are similar to Alice v. CLS, in which the additional 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) and (h)). For instance, Vancura (US 2010/0029381 A1) discloses a conventional electronic gaming device comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory with instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to execute game programs and for random outcomes are performed based on the output of a random number generator (e.g., RNG) (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0008, 0037-0040). For at least these reasons, the additional elements when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Regarding independent claims 8 and 15, the claims recite substantially the same limitations independent Claim 1 which have been analyzed above, but merely differ being directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and a method embodiment as opposed to an electronic gaming system of Claim 1. These differences do not change or modify the analysis of independent Claim 1 which is incorporated herein. For substantially the same reasons the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, each of the limitations of the claims have been reviewed and analyzed and were found to recite additional limitations of a grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)), instructions to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, perform extra solution activity of the abstract idea, 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 1-20 are found to be directed to an abstract idea 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