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 .
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/31/18 has been entered.
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 4/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative asserts arguments to traverse the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101. Specifically, the Applicant’s representative argues that the pending claims are: i) not directed to an abstract idea (see Remarks, pg. 12-14) and ii) are directed to “Significantly More” than the abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons provided below.
With to the first argument, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims are: a) directed to patent eligible subject matter under Step 2A-prong 1 and b) the claims ingrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2 (see Remarks, pg. 12-14). Specifically, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims “solve a technical problem using an unconventional user interface and memory device that tracks symbols displayed in the user interface so that random determinations may be weighted based on symbols currently displayed within the user interface”. As argued, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims recite The Applicant’s representative further argues that the Specification sets forth an improvement in technology and the claim includes the components or steps for the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification” (see Remarks, pg. 12-14). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A-prong 1, the pending claims, recite a series of steps for managing a symbol game including rules and/or instructions for managing a feature game to cause the base game mode including (i) cause the feature symbols to be removed from display in the first reel area, and (ii) cause display of 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. Moreover, the claims recite further recites additional rules for managing the feature game which include “determine that the first reel area includes a triggering number of the feature symbols displayed therein for trigger a feature game in a feature game mode;” and “determine whether the second reel area includes the triggering number of the feature symbols displayed therein”. For at least these reasons, the claims are found to be directed to a certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental processes because they recite an observation, judgment, evaluation, and/or opinion under Step 2A-prong 1.
With respect to Step 2A-prong 2, the Applicant’s representative argues that the pending claims, as a whole, recite an integration to a practical application. Specifically, the Applicant’s representative argues that the Specification discloses that the electronic gaming systema and methods solve various technical problems in the realm of electronic gaming such as “a blocking feature symbol that remove symbol positions from forming part of a winning combination of symbol positions 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 and enables the blocking feature symbols to be used while maintaining or reducing the computational resources required to ensure all objectives of the electronic game are met” (see Specification, 0023). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, managing a blocking feature symbol that remove symbol positions from forming part of a winning combination of symbol are part of the instructions to managing the electronic game and maintaining an RTP is a requirement for managing a wagering game in regulatory requirements which does not integrate the claim into a practical application but are directed to steps and/or instructions for managing the game. Although Applicant’s Specification alleges maintaining or reducing computations resources as an improvement, the Specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides such technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art of any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. V. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the claims are not found to set forth an improvement in technology because it is not described in the specification. It follows, that the claims are not found to integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2 and has been maintained below in the rejection below.
With respect to the argument that the claims are directed to “Significantly More”, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims satisfy Step 2B of the 2019 PEG because there is no indication that it was well-understood, routine, or convention to “select a first plurality of symbols to display in the first reel area using a first set of reel strips and a first weighted number generator (RNG) call, the first weighted RNG call weighted based on the first number of feature symbols currently displayed in the first area” and “select a second plurality of symbols to display in the second reel area using a second set of reel strips and a second weighted RNG call, the second weighted RNG call weighted based on the second number of feature symbols currently displayed in the second area, 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” (see Remarks, pg. 14-15). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The aforementioned limitations, recite steps and/or instructions for managing the symbol game. Specifically, “selecting a first plurality of symbols too display in the first reel area using a first set of reel strips and a first weighted number generator call, wherein the first weighted RNG call weighted based on the first number of feature symbols currently display in the first area” and “select a second plurality of symbols to display in the second reel area using a second set of reel strips and a second weighted RNG call, the second weighted RNG call weighted based on the second number of feature symbols currently displayed in the second area, 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” of the game are directed to rules and/or instructions for managing the feature symbol game. As the courts have indicated, “Significantly More” must be more than the abstract idea itself. In this instance, the limitations directed to instructions for managing the feature symbol game do not amount to significantly more but merely amount to the abstract idea itself, invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity of the abstract idea and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 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;
at least one memory device storing at least a first number of feature symbols displayed in a first reel area and a second number of feature symbols currently displayed in 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 the first reel area using a first set of reel strips and a first weighted random number generator (RNG) call, the first weighted RNG call weighted based on the first number of feature symbols currently displayed in the first area; -certain method of organizing human activity;
select a second plurality of symbol to display in the second reel area using a second set of reel strips and a second weighted RNG call, the second weighted RNG call weighted based on the second number of feature symbols currently displayed in the second area, 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,
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 and/or mental process;
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 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. -certain method of organizing human activity;
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 includes rules and/or instructions for managing an electronic game that includes a first reel area and a second reel area (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 additional 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;” “ at least one memory device storing at least a first number of feature symbols displayed in a first reel area and a second number of feature symbols currently displayed in a second reel area;” “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)). 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,” and “cause display of a visual indication that the second reel area is inactive for the feature game;” recite insignificant extra solution activity of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). 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
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