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, 11, and 16 have been amended and no new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative traverses the rejection under 35 USC 101 and argues that i) the claims are not directed to a grouping of abstract ideas (see Remarks, pg. 12-14) and ii) the claims are directed to “significantly more” than the abstract idea (see Remarks, pg. 15). The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons discussed below.
With respect to the first argument, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims are not drawn to the general concept of game instructions being performed on a machine but to a practical application performed on a particular gaming system that does not monopolize all rule-based games. Specifically, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims solve a technical problem which includes “blocking feature symbols that remove symbol positions from forming part of a winning combination of symbol positions” that may require complex computations to continually monitor the active symbol positions and control the base game outcomes to achieve the desired return-to-player and payout rate by providing a user interface with two reel areas that are independently controlled to provide a result of the base game. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As acknowledged by the Applicant’s representative, the claims recite steps that are directed to blocking feature symbols that remove symbol positions from forming part of a winning combination of symbol positions to control the base game outcome to achieve a desired return-to-player and payout rate. Stated differently, the claims recite a series of steps and/or instructions for managing a block feature symbol in a reel game to form a winning combination to provide a game outcome and payout which are analogous to steps for managing a wagering game. For at least this reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the claims are not found to integrate the claim into a practical application.
Furthermore, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims reflect an improvement in technology that is describe in the Specification. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. A review of the cited portions of the Specification recites merely a general statement of an idea or solution but does not provide sufficient detail as to how maintaining or reducing the computations resources that could be construed as a technical solution to a technical problem contemplated by the claimed invention. In contrast, the Applicant’s argument asserts that it is the user interface with two reel areas that are independently controlled to provide a result of the base game that is the solution to the technical problem. However, providing a result of the base game is a step and/or instruction of managing the game which is the abstract idea itself and it is unclear as to the interrelationship between the user interface and the claimed steps that maintains or reduces the computation resources that would be an improvement to computer functionality. Furthermore, the addition of a user interface with two reel areas that are independently controlled to provide a result amounts to arranging transactional information of the game to indicate the progress of the game which is the general function known to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts that the courts have indicated is not sufficient to show an improvement to computer functionality. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the claims are not found to integrate the claim into a practical application.
With respect to the second argument, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims amount to significantly more because they satisfy Step 2B of the 2019 PEG (see Remarks, pg. 15). Specifically, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the steps such as: “select a first plurality of symbols to display in a first reel area using a first set of reel strips”, “select a second plurality of symbols to display in a second reel area using a second set of reel strips, the second set of reel strips configured to result in the selected second plurality of symbols being different from the selected first plurality of symbols” and “cause display of the first plurality of symbols in the first reel area and the second plurality of symbols in the second reel area, the first plurality of symbols and the second plurality of symbols including one or more feature symbols” are not show by the Office Action as “well-understood, routine, or conventional”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously noted in the Non-Final Rejection, the limitations are directed to rules and/or instructions for managing and arranging transactional information of the symbol game which is part of the abstract idea itself under Step 2A-prong 1. The additional elements to “display” and “cause display” recites a well understood, routine and conventional use of a display device known to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts. Additionally, displaying steps of a game on a general purpose gaming machine amount to invoking 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)). It follows, that these limitations when viewed individually and/or as a combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection has been maintained in the rejection 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 claims 1, recites the following limitation directed to a grouping of abstract ideas as indicated below:
1. An electronic gaming machine comprising:
at least one display device configured to display an electronic game that includes a first reel area and a second reel area; and
a game controller configured to execute instructions stored in at least one memory that, when executed, cause the game controller to:
select a first plurality of symbols to display in a first reel area using a first set of reel strips; -certain method of organizing human activity;
select a second plurality of symbols to display in a second reel area using a second set of reel strips, the second set of reel strips configured to result in the selected second plurality of symbols being different from the selected first plurality of symbols; -certain method of organizing human activity;
cause display of the first plurality of symbols in the first reel area and the second plurality of symbols in the second reel area, the first plurality of symbols and the second plurality of symbols including one or more feature symbols when in a base game mode; --certain method of organizing human activity;
determine that the first reel area includes a triggering number of the feature symbols displayed therein for triggering a feature game in a feature game mode; - certain method of organizing human activity;
initiate the feature game within the first reel area; - certain method of organizing human activity;
determine whether the second reel area includes the triggering number of the feature symbols displayed therein; -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
in response to the second reel area not including the triggering number of the feature symbols, -certain method of organizing human activity; cause display of a visual indication that the second reel area is inactive for the feature game; and
upon conclusion of the feature game: generate a feature game award; and cause return to the base game mode -certain method of organizing human activity; including (i) cause the feature symbols to be removed from display in the first reel area, and (ii) cause display of a visual indication that the second reel area is reactivated while maintaining the display of the feature symbols in the second reel area when the second reel area does not include the triggering number of the feature symbols.
The limitations, as indicated above, are found to recite a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite rules and/or instructions for managing an electronic game (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Moreover, some of the limitations, as indicated above recite a mental process because they recite an observation, judgment, evaluation , and/or opinion that is capable of being performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). 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: “cause display of the first plurality of symbols in the first reel area and the second plurality of symbols in the second reel area,” “cause display of a plurality of symbols including one or more feature symbols in each of the first and second reel areas as part of a base game when in a base game mode;” and “including (i) cause the feature symbols to be removed from display in the first reel area, and (ii) cause display of a visual indication that the second reel area is reactivated while maintaining the display of the feature symbols in the second reel area when the second reel area does not include the triggering number of the feature symbols.” recite insignificant extra solution activity of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Moreover, the limitations such as: “at least one display device configured to display an electronic game that includes a first reel area and a second reel area;” and “a game controller configured to execute instructions stored in at least one memory that, when executed, cause the game controller to:” recite instructions to invoke 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 at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent claim 1, do not 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 recited such as: “an electronic gaming machine” comprising “at least one display device”, and “a game controller” when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements do not amount to significantly more but recite highly-generalized computer components to perform their ordinary function that perform steps to 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)). For instance, Vancura (US 2010/0029381 A1) discloses a conventional electronic gaming machine comprises a display device, and a game controller to implement an electronic game is known to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts. It follows that these additional elements when considered either individually and/or as a collection of elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Regarding independent claims 11 and 16, the claims recite limitations directed to the same subject matter but are directed to the “non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “computer-implemented method” embodiments that does not substantially alter the analysis conducted above. It follows that for substantially the same reasons, independent claims 11 and 16 are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more for substantially the same reasons as discussed above.
Regarding dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20, the limitations of the claims have been analyzed and were found to recite steps directed to a grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)), steps to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificantly extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, claims 1-20 are found to recite 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