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 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 1-6, 8-9, 11-12, and 14-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As summarized in MPEP § 2106, subject matter eligibility is determined based on a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The instant application includes claims concerning a gaming system (i.e., a machine) in claims 8-9, 11-12, 14, 22-23 a method (i.e., a process) in claims 1-6, 21 and a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e. a manufacture) in claim 15-20.
In Prong 1 of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon.
In particular exemplary presented claim 1 includes the following underlined claim elements:
1. A method for operating an electronic game of chance, the method comprising:
initiating, by a processor of a gaming system, the electronic game of chance on the gaming system, wherein the electronic game of chance is initiated using a default configuration;
presenting, by the processor of the gaming system, to a player of the electronic game of chance, an option to change the default configuration of the electronic game of chance;
receiving, by the processor of the gaming system, an indication the player of the electronic game of chance has selected the option to change the default configuration of the electronic game of chance;
in response to the received indication the player of the electronic game of chance has selected the option to change the default configuration of the electronic game of chance, presenting, by the processor of the gaming system, a menu of a plurality of options for changing the default configuration of the electronic game of chance, each option of the plurality of options related to operation of a feature of the electronic game of chance and wherein the plurality of options are presented in a progression mechanism representation, the progression mechanism comprising a plurality of levels, each level of the plurality of levels comprising a plurality of configuration options for the electronic game of chance;
receiving, by the processor of the gaming system, an indication of a selected plurality of options from the menu of the plurality of options for changing the default configuration of the electronic game of chance, wherein the selected plurality of options are selected according to the presented progression mechanism representation;
updating, by the processor of the gaming system, the default configuration of the electronic game of chance to an updated configuration of the electronic game of chance based on the received indication of the elected plurality of options; and
saving, by the processor of the gaming system, the updated configuration of the electronic game of chance to an account mechanism associated with the player, wherein the saved updated configuration of the electronic game of chance is used in a subsequent electronic game of chance.
The claim elements underlined above, concern the court enumerated abstract ideas of Mental Processes including observation, evaluation, and judgement because the claims are directed to series of steps for observing and evaluating player selected game options and making judgments of game results based thereon as well as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including managing personal behavior including interactions between people including social activities and following rules or instructions because the claims set forth the interactions involving one or more parties in the context of a game interface.
As the exemplary claim recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon it is further considered under Prong 2 of Step 2A to determine if the claim recites additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Wherein the practical applications are set forth by MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) are broadly directed to: the improvement in technology, use of a particular machine and applying or using the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a technology environment. Limitations that explicitly do not support the integration of the judicial exception in to a practical application are defined by MPEP 2106.05(f-h) and include merely using a computer to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology environment or field of use.
With respect to the above the claimed invention is not integrated into a practical application because it does not meet the criteria of MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) and although it is performed on a processor of a gaming system it is not directed to a particular machine because the hardware elements are not linked to a specific device/machine and would reasonably include other devices such as generic computers, smart phones, game consoles, kiosks and the like. Accordingly, the claims limitations are not indicative of the integration of the identified judicial exception into a practical application, and the consideration of patent eligibility continues to step 2B.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea(s) per se including a processor of a gaming system amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structures that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry per the applicant’s description (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0021]-[0025], [0033]). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, as presented the claimed invention when considered as a whole amounts to the mere instructions to implement an abstract idea [i.e. software or equivalent process steps] on a generic computer [i.e. controller or processor] without causing the improvement of the generic computer or another technology field.
The applicant’s specification is further noted as supporting the above rejection wherein neither the abstract idea nor the associated generic computer structure as claimed are disclosed as improving another technological field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, or meaningfully linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0021]-[0025], [0033]). In particular the applicant’s specification only contains computing elements which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and accordingly their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art per the requirements of 37 CFR 1.71. Were these elements of the applicant’s invention to be presented in the future as non-conventional and non-generic involvement of a computing structure, such would stand at odds with the disclosure of the applicant's invention as found in their specification as originally filed.
“[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . .a computer,’ . . . that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132S. Ct. at 1301). In this case, the claims recite a generic computer implementation of the covered abstract idea.
The remaining presented claims 2-6, 8-9, 11-12, and 14-23 incorporate substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with respect to the exemplary claim 1, while the additional elements recited by the additional claims including one or more of a processor of a gaming system, a display, a processor, a memory, computer-readable medium and a ticket as respectively presented in certain claims that when considered both individually and as a whole in the respective combinations of each of the additional claims are not sufficient to support patent eligibility under prong 2 of step 2A or step 2B because they each present substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with reflection to exemplary claim 1 above and accordingly for the same reasons set forth above with respect to the exemplary claim 1 are similarly directed to or otherwise include abstract ideas.
Therefore, the listed claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, 17-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Walker et al (US 2003/0119579).
Claim 1: Walker et al teaches a method for operating an electronic game of chance, the method comprising:
initiating, by a processor of a gaming system, the electronic game of chance on the gaming system, wherein the electronic game of chance is initiated using a default configuration (-wherein modifications are made with respect to default paytable /payout- Walker Abstract; Figure 1; Element 102; Paragraphs [0029]-[0031]);
presenting, by the processor of the gaming system, to a player of the electronic game of chance, an option to change the default configuration of the electronic game of chance (Walker Figure 2; element 215);
receiving, by the processor of the gaming system, an indication the player of the electronic game of chance has selected the option to change the default configuration of the electronic game of chance (Walker Figure 9A; element 910);
in response to the received indication the player of the electronic game of chance has selected the option to change the default configuration of the electronic game of chance, presenting, by the processor of the gaming system, a menu of a plurality of options for changing the default configuration of the electronic game of chance, each option of the plurality of options related to operation of a feature of the electronic game of chance and wherein the plurality of options are presented in a progression mechanism representation (-customization choices presented as buttons or sliders- Walker Figures 4A-6, 9A), the progression mechanism comprising a plurality of levels, each level of the plurality of levels comprising a plurality of configuration options for the electronic game of chance (-wherein each of the plurality of levels modifies a first configuration option, such as the payout amount for a symbol combination, and one or more additional compensation values, such as probability for s ymbol combination, that may be further constrained by the player- Walker Figure 5A; Paragraphs [0030]-[0031]);
receiving, by the processor of the gaming system, an indication of a selected plurality of options from the menu of the plurality of options for changing the default configuration of the electronic game of chance, wherein the selected plurality of options are selected according to the presented progression mechanism representation (-customization choices presented as buttons or sliders- Walker Figures 4A-6, 9A); and
updating, by the processor of the gaming system, the default configuration of the electronic game of chance to an updated configuration of the electronic game of chance based on the received indication of the elected plurality of options (Walker Figures 9A-9B; Element 978) and;
saving, by the processor of the gaming system, the updated configuration of the electronic game of chance to an account mechanism associated with the player, wherein the saved updated configuration of the electronic game of chance is used in a subsequent electronic game of chance (Walker Paragraphs [0270], [0277]-[0278]; Figures 9c-9d Elements 978, 980).
Claim 3: Walker et al teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the selected plurality of options comprises an option to increase an appearance rate of a selected symbol in the electronic game of chance (-both individually and in symbol combinations- Walker Paragraphs [0031], [0036], [0040], [0055], [0058]).
Claim 4: Walker et al teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the selected plurality of options comprises an option to increase a chance to trigger a mystery bonus in the electronic game of chance (-wherein probability of game outcomes may be varied and the type game outcomes include bonus triggering outcomes understood as equivalent to mystery bonus outcomes- Walker Paragraphs [0039] [0040], [0057]).
Claim 5: Walker et al teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the selected plurality of options comprises an option to increase a number of free spins won on a feature trigger in the electronic game of chance (-Understood equivalent to increasing the number of opportunities during a bonus game- Walker Paragraphs [0059], [0090]).
Claim 8: Walker et al teaches a gaming system comprising:
a display device (Walker Figure 1; Elements 118, 132-136);
a processor coupled with the display device (Walker Figure 1; Element 102);
a memory coupled with and readable by the processor and storing therein a set of instructions (Walker Figure 1; Elements 104; Paragraphs [0139], [0155]) which, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to:
initiate an electronic game of chance on the gaming system using a default configuration (-wherein modifications are made with respect to default paytable/payout- Walker Abstract; Figure 1; Element 102; Paragraphs [0029]-[0031]);
receive an indication the player of the electronic game of chance has selected an option to change the default configuration of the electronic game of chance (Walker Figure 9A; element 910);
in response to the received an indication the player of the electronic game of chance has selected the option to change the default configuration of the electronic game of chance, present, through the display device, a menu of a plurality of options for changing the default configuration of the electronic game of chance, each option of the plurality of options related to operation of a feature of the electronic game of chance and wherein the plurality of options are presented in a progression mechanism representation (-customization choices presented as buttons or sliders- Walker Figures 4A-6, 9A) ), the progression mechanism comprising a plurality of levels, each level of the plurality of levels comprising a plurality of configuration options for the electronic game of chance (-wherein each of the plurality of levels modifies a first configuration option, such as the payout amount for a symbol combination, and one or more additional compensation values, such as probability for symbol combination, that may be further constrained by the player- Walker Figure 5A; Paragraphs [0030]-[0031]);
receive an indication of a selected plurality of options from the menu of the plurality of options for changing the default configuration of the electronic game of chance, wherein the selected plurality of options are selected according to the presented progression mechanism representation (-customization choices presented as buttons or sliders- Walker Figures 4A-6, 9A);
update the default configuration of the electronic game of chance to an updated configuration of the electronic game of chance based on the received indication of the selected plurality of options (Walker Figures 9A-9B) and;
save the updated configuration of the electronic game of chance to an account mechanism associated with the player, wherein the saved updated configuration of the electronic game of chance is used in a subsequent electronic game of chance (Walker Paragraphs [0270], [0277]-[0278]; Figures 9c-9d Elements 978, 980).
Claim 9: Walker et al teaches the gaming system of claim 8, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to present, through the display device, to a player of the electronic game of chance, the option to change the default configuration of the electronic game of chance (-customization choices presented as buttons or sliders- Walker Figures 3A-6, 9A).
Claim 11: Walker et al teaches the gaming system of claim 10, wherein the plurality of levels comprises a first level and a second level and wherein the plurality of configuration options available in the second level depend upon a selection of a configuration option in the first level (-understood as equivalent to the player selection of options causing the machine selection of other options to balance the payout- Walker Figure 6; Paragraph [0156]).
Claim 12: Walker et al teaches the gaming system of claim 8, wherein a number of options in the selected plurality of options is limited to a predefined maximum number of options (3 options shown per outcome/level- Walker Figure 5A).
Claim 14: Walker et al teaches the gaming system of claim 8, wherein the electronic game of chance comprises a slots game (Walker Paragraph [0035]; Figure 2).
Claim 15: Walker et al teaches a non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising a set of instructions stored therein which, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to:
initiate the electronic game of chance on the gaming system, wherein the electronic game of chance is initiated using a default configuration;
present to a player of the electronic game of chance, an option to change the default configuration of the electronic game of chance (-wherein modifications are made with respect to default paytable /payout- Walker Abstract; Figure 1; Element 102; Paragraphs [0029]-[0031]);
receive an indication the player of the electronic game of chance has selected the option to change the default configuration of the electronic game of chance (Walker Figure 9A; element 910);
in response to the received indication the player of the electronic game of chance has selected the option to change the default configuration of the electronic game of chance, present a menu of a plurality of options for changing the default configuration of the electronic game of chance, each option of the plurality of options related to operation of a feature of the electronic game of chance, wherein the plurality of options are presented in a progression mechanism representation (-customization choices presented as buttons or sliders- Walker Figures 4A-6, 9A) representation, and wherein each option of the plurality of options related to operation of a feature of the electronic game of chance affects gameplay mechanics of the electronic game of chance (-modifying appearance rate of symbol combinations and outcomes associated therewith- Walker Paragraphs [0031], [0036], [0040], [0055], [0058]);
receive an indication of a selected plurality of options from the menu of the plurality of options for changing the default configuration of the electronic game of chance, wherein the selected plurality of options are selected according to the presented progression mechanism representation (-customization choices presented as buttons or sliders- Walker Figures 4A-6, 9A);; and
update the default configuration of the electronic game of chance to an updated configuration of the electronic game of chance based on the received indication of the elected plurality of options (Walker Figures 9A-9B); and
save the updated configuration of the electronic game of chance to an account mechanism associated with the player (Walker Paragraphs [0270], [0277]-[0278]; Figures 9c-9d Elements 978, 980).
Claim 17: Walker et al teaches the non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the selected plurality of options comprises an option to increase an appearance rate of a selected symbol in the electronic game of chance (-both individually and in symbol combinations- Walker Paragraphs [0031], [0036], [0040], [0055], [0058]).
Claim 18: Walker et al teaches the non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the selected plurality of options comprises an option to increase a chance to trigger a mystery bonus in the electronic game of chance (-wherein probability of game outcomes may be varied and the type game outcomes include bonus triggering outcomes understood as equivalent to mystery bonus outcomes- Walker Paragraphs [0039] [0040], [0057]).
Claim 19: Walker et al teaches the non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the selected plurality of options comprises an option to increase a number of free spins won on a feature trigger in the electronic game of chance (-Understood equivalent to increasing the number of opportunities during a bonus game- Walker Paragraphs [0059], [0090]).
Claim 21: Walker et al teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of levels comprises a first level and a second level and wherein the plurality of configuration options available in the second level depend upon a selection of a configuration option in the first level (Wherein the modification of one level constrains the available modifications of all additional levels and vice versa because the additional levels have to be adjusted to compensate for each previously modified level - Walker Paragraphs [0030]-[0031]).
Claim 22: Walker et al teaches the gaming system of claim 11, wherein the plurality of levels further comprises a third level and wherein the plurality of configuration options available in the third level depend upon a selection of a configuration option in the second level (Wherein the modification of one level constrains the available modifications of all additional levels and vice versa because the additional levels have to be adjusted to compensate for each previously modified level - Walker Paragraphs [0030]-[0031]).
Claim 23: Walker et al teaches the gaming system of claim 11, wherein the selection of a configuration option in the first level removes the ability to select an option of the plurality of options available in the second level (Wherein the modification of one level constrains the available modifications of all additional levels and vice versa because the additional levels have to be adjusted to compensate for each previously modified level - Walker Paragraphs [0030]-[0031]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker et al (US 2003/0119579)
Claim 6: Walker et al teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the selected plurality of options comprises an option to increase a wild multiplier during a free spin feature in the electronic game of chance (-wherein free spins are understood as equivalent to increasing the number of opportunities during a bonus game- Walker Paragraphs [0056], [0059], [0090]).
Walker teaches the selective use of symbols including the understood selective use of multipliers, and the inclusion of free bonus game plays equivalent to free spins as claimed. While Walker does not explicitly utilize the multipliers in the disclosed free spin feature, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated these known game features with one another in order to provide the predictable and expected result of providing the user the ability to enlarge free spin game outcomes.
Claim 20: Walker et al teaches the non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the selected plurality of options comprises an option to increase a wild multiplier during a free spin feature in the electronic game of chance (-As modified in claim 6 herein above- Walker Paragraphs [0056], [0059], [0090]).
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker et al (US 2003/0119579) as applied to at least claim 1, 3-5, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, 17-19, and 21-23 above, and further in view of Henrick et al (US 9,373,226)
Claim 2: The combination of Walker & Henrick teach the method of claim 1, wherein the progression mechanism representation comprises a skill tree (Henrick Abstract; Col 7: 4-55).
Walker teaches the invention as presented above including providing for the customization of game features utilizing a progression mechanism embodied in at least a selection menu as cited in the rejections above. While the prior art of Wlaker does not reference or describe the progression mechanism as being represented by a skill tree, this feature is taught by an analogous of Henrick (Henrick Abstract; Col 7: 4-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a skill tree representation of the progression mechanism as taught by Henrick in place of or addition to the progression mechanism of Walker in order to provide the expected and predictable result of incorporating progression mechanisms with themes similar to those used with player characters and known to be used with gaming machines as taught by Henrick.
Claim 16: The combination of Walker & Henrick teach the non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the progression mechanism representation comprises a skill tree (Henrick Abstract; Col 7: 4-55).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 3rd, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Commencing on page 7 of the above dated remarks the Applicant proposes that the presented claim amendments have addressed the outstanding rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
The Applicant present amendments and remarks are respectfully non-persuasive in overcoming the rejection of claims under this section for the reasons stated in the rejection presented herein above.
Continuing on pages 7-10 the Applicant presents that the claims incorporate a progression mechanism comprising a plurality of levels wherein each level of the plurality of levels comprises a plurality of configuration options for the electronic game of chance, and proposes that the same is not equivalent to the customization menu of Walker and accordingly that the rejection of claims as presented under 35 USC 102/103 should be withdrawn based on this proposed distinguishing feature
Upon consideration of preceding arguments, the Applicant presented amendments, and the further defined interactions between levels as presented in newly presented claims 21-23, the plurality of levels, each level of the plurality of levels comprising a plurality of configuration options for the electronic game of chance have been further clarified as corresponding to the plurality of different configuration options, (including the payout amount for a given symbol combination and a probability for the given symbol combination), wherein each configuration option for a given symbol combination may be constrained by the player selection or alternatively compensated by the machine selection such the combination of adjustments maintains a targeted house advantage (Walker Figure 5A; Paragraphs [0030]-[0031]). The prior correlation further reflects the dependency relationship between levels as particularly present in newly presented claims 21-23. It is not immediately clear from the Applicant remarks why this feature of the prior art and claimed invention are not the “same”. However, it is respectfully noted that in the absence of limiting definition of these terms in the Applicant’s specification, mere differences in nomenclature are not sufficient to separate the claimed invention from the prior art.
In view of the preceding the rejection of claims is respectfully maintained as presented herein above.
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 ROBERT E MOSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-4451. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:45-3:45.
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, David Lewis can be reached at 571-272-7673. 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.
ROBERT E. MOSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/ROBERT E MOSSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715