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, 3-8, 10-15, 17-20 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. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-20 recite an abstract idea of organizing of human activity. The claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application and 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
More specifically, regarding Step 1, of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2a1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Claims 1, 3-7 recite a method for operating an electronic game, the method comprising:
executing, by a processor of a gaming system, an electronic game having a progressive award;
presenting, by the processor of the gaming system, on a display device of the gaming system a representation of the electronic game, the representation of the electronic game comprising a plurality of features, each feature of the plurality of features comprising a plurality of graphical symbols;
presenting, by the processor of the gaming system, on a display device of the gaming system a representation of a state of the progressive award, the representation of the state of the progressive comprising a first selected symbol and second selected symbol, the first selected symbol comprising a same symbol as one of the plurality of symbols of the plurality of features and wherein a number of the first selected symbol presented in the representation of the state of the progressive award persistently indicates an amount of time since the progress award was last awarded;
detecting, by the processor of the gaming system, an occurrence of a first predefined event within the electronic game; and
in response to detecting the occurrence of the first predefined event within the electronic game, updating, by the processor of the gaming system, the presented representation of the state of the progressive award and the presented representation of the electronic game with an animation displayed on the display device, the animation comoprising the first selected symbol moving from one of the plurality of features of the presented representation of the electronic game to the presented representation of the state of the progressive award.
Claims 8, 10-14 recite: a system comprising: a display device; a processor coupled with the display device; a memory coupled with and readable by the processor and having stored therein a set of instructions which, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to:
execute an electronic game having a progressive award;
present, on the display device, a representation of the electronic game, the representation of the electronic game comprising a plurality of features, each feature of the plurality of features comprising a plurality of graphical symbols;
present, on the display device, a representation of a state of the progressive award, the representation of the state of the progressive comprising a first selected symbol and a second selected symbol, the first selected symbol comprising a same symbol as one of the plurality of symbols of the plurality of features and wherein a number of the first selected symbol presented in the representation of the state of the progressive award persistently indicates an amount of time since the progress award was last awarded;
detect an occurrence of a first predefined event within the electronic game; and
in response to detecting the occurrence of the first predefined event within the electronic game, update the presented representation of the state of the progressive award and the presented representation of the electronic game with an animation displayed on the display device, the animation comprising the first selected symbol moving from one of the plurality of features of the presented representation of the electronic game to the presented representation of the state of the progressive award.
Claim 15, 17-20 recite: a non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising a set of instructions stored therein which when executed by a processor, causes the processor to:
execute an electronic game having a progressive award;
present, on a display device of a gaming system, a representation of the electronic game, the representation of the electronic game comprising a plurality of features, each feature of the plurality of features comprising a plurality of graphical symbols;
present, on the display device of the gaming system, a representation of a state of the progressive award, the representation of the state of the progressive comprising a first selected symbol, the first selected symbol comprising a same symbol as one of the plurality of symbols of the plurality of features and wherein a number of the first selected symbol presented in the representation of the state of the progressive award persistently indicates an amount of time since the progress award was last awarded;
detect an occurrence of a first predefined event within the electronic game; and
in response to detecting the occurrence of the first predefined event within the electronic game, update the presented representation of the state of the progressive award and the presented representation of the electronic game with an animation displayed on the display device, the animation comprising the first selected symbol moving from one of the plurality of features of the presented representation of the electronic game to the presented representation of the state of the progressive award.
The underlined claim limitations recite an abstract idea of organization of human activity. The underlined claim limitations recites rules playing a game with a progressive award. These limitations recites steps for managing a game. A management of a game is a management or organization of human activity.
Step 2a2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration of whether the claim recites additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application.
An additional element or combination of additional elements that are indicative of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application include:
-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
Additional element or combination of additional elements that are not indicative of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application include:
-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 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-20 do not apply a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-20 are not directed to an improvement to a function of a computer. 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 additional elements of: a processor, a display device, a memory is recited at a high level of generality and therefore acts as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The steps of presenting or displaying an animation of the selected symbol amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements identified above considered alone and in combination fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-20 recite a processor, a display device, a memory. Chen (US 2006/0116208 discloses it is well known of electronic gaming machine to comprise a display, processor, and memory device (paragraph 5).
In addition, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), indicated that displaying information is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claims further recite an abstract idea of organizing human activity. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified abstract idea. Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The dependent clams merely include limitations that further define the abstract idea and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract. The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/7/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC 101
Applicant argues that the pending claims recite a specific combination of limitations that, among other things, relate to executing an electronic game on a gaming system. More specifically, the claims recite specific processes, such as executing the electronic game, presenting representations of the game and an award of the game on a display device, detecting an event in the game, and displaying an animation on the display device. As can be appreciated, the pending claims do not seek to "tie up" any judicial exception generally such that others cannot practice it. Among other things, the pending claims clearly recite much more than just an abstract idea of methods of organizing human activity. The do not recite a method of organizing human activity, rather, recite very specific device operations.
However, the claims recite an abstract idea of managing a game. More specifically the claims recite how awards are provided and presented. These limitations recite steps of managing a game. Managing a game is a social activity. Therefore, the claims recites an abstract idea of organizing human activity.
Step 2a1
Applicant submits that the pending claims are not directed to, and cannot be construed as corresponding to, any of the examples provided in the Eligibility Guidance for certain methods of organizing human activity. For instance, none of the limitations of the pending claims recite "fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)" or "commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)" or "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)."
However, as indicated above, the claims recite an abstract idea of managing a game. Managing a game is a social activity. Therefore, the claims recites an abstract idea of organizing human activity
Applicant argues that the claims are similar to McRO. However, the claims in McRO is directed lip audio synch with animation and tied to a computer. However, Applicant’s invention is not similar to McRoO. Applicant’s claimed invention displays an animation of the symbol. The electronic display device electronically displays or animates the selected symbols or awards. The steps of presenting or displaying an animation of the selected symbol amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Applicant argues that the claims are not similar to Smith because the court held that the marking in Smith were printed matter and not patentable. This argument is moot because the claims were not rejected because they were similar to Smith. The claims were rejected under 2019 PSMEG guidelines.
Applicant argues the claims are integrated into a practical application by addressing a technical problem with executing electronic games. However, there is no technical solution to a technical problem. A new award scheme or a management of a game is an abstract idea, not a technical solution.
Step 2b
Applicant argues that the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than abstract idea.
However, the additional elements of using an electronic device (processor, memory, display device) are well known, routine and conventional. Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jasson H Yoo whose telephone number is (571)272-5563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571 270-7625. 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.
/JASSON H YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights