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 .
Response to Amendment
This is in response to the amendments/arguments filed on 2/24/26. Claims 1 – 17 are pending in the current application.
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 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: It must be determined whether the invention falls in one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claims 1 – 17 are directed towards a method, (process), which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2a:
Prong 1: It must be determined whether the invention is directed to judicially recognized exception. Claim 1 is analyzed below with limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea.
A method of operating a gaming system, the method comprising: responsive to an occurrence of a first game triggering event: determining, by a processor, a result of a play of a first game, and displaying, by a single display device, the result of the play of the first game, and responsive to an occurrence of a second game triggering event: determining, by the processor, a second game element for a play of a second game, and while concurrently displaying at least a first portion of the result of the play of the first game, displaying, by the single display device, at least part of the determined second game element, wherein the at least part of the determined second game element overlays a second portion of the result of the play of the first game.
The abstract idea is defined by the underlined portions exemplary claim 1, with substantially similar features found in claims 7 and 12. Dependent claims 2 – 6, 8 - 11, and 13 - 20, further define the abstract idea or relate to the implementation of the abstract idea. The abstract idea is defined in at least the following grouping below:
Certain methods of organizing human activity (rules for conducting a game)
Mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment)
The claims are directed towards an abstract idea of rules for conducting a game which falls into the category of organizing human activity, (See MPEP 2106/04(a)(2)(II)(C)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a gaming system that provides a game to a player, wherein the game represents the exchange of consideration based on probabilities created during the dealing and displaying of outcomes. The specification and drawings make clear that the claimed invention is responsive to wager. Controlling a wagering game that allows a participate represents managing personal behavior. Furthermore, the claims are drawn to how a game is played, which represents following rules/instructions that define how the game is conducted.
The claims are also directed towards a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more human, which fall into the category of mental processes, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a wagering game, wherein the claims require displaying game elements and determining results of plays of a game. The claims recite instructions for controlling a game with these features. Here, a human can observe the displaying of game elements and determine an outcome. Therefore, since the claimed invention can practically be performed in the human mind, it represents an ineligible abstract mental process.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
The claims recite a generic processor and display along with instructions that generate and present a game to a player and determine the result of plays of the game, which is viewed as no more than instructions to implement a judicial exception.
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2b: It must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim language does recite a processor, display and game elements, however, viewed as a whole, these additional elements are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Viewing the limitations 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 11 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Visocnik (U.S. 2004/0048646).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Visocnik discloses a method and system of operating a gaming system, (“The present invention relates to electronic, video, slot machine games and game methods”, par. 0001), the method comprising responsive to an occurrence of a first triggering event, determining, by a processor, a result of a play of a first game, (“bonus sequences, which are triggered by the player obtaining certain outcomes during play of the primary game”, par. 0003), and displaying, by a single display device, the result of the play of the first game, and responsive to an occurrence of a second game triggering event, (“In addition to base game symbols, the first data structure also includes one or more trigger symbols 23 acting as triggers for the bonus game event”, par. 0081 and fig. 1), wherein the Examiner views the bonus game event being triggered by trigger symbols as being equivalent to a second game triggering event. Visocnik further discloses determining, by the processor, a second game element for a play of a second game, (“Once a bonus has been triggered, the processor 12 of the present invention selects and places a bonus symbol 24 (FIG. 2) in the game matrix” and part 24 of fig. 2), and while concurrently displaying at least a portion of the result of the play of the first game, displaying, by the single display device, at least part of the determined second game element, (“Once a bonus has been triggered, the processor 12 of the present invention selects and places a bonus symbol 24 (FIG. 2) in the game matrix” and part 24 of fig. 2), wherein the at least part of the determined second game element overlays a second portion of the result of the play of the first game, (“The movement of the bonus symbol 24 to another position may be scripted as by controlling the bonus symbol 24 to move to a designated position on the next reel 22b as shown in FIG. 5 to overlay or underlay the game symbol at that coordinate (the F symbol)”, par. 0092 and fig. 5, part 24), wherein the Examiner views bonus symbol 24 overlaying symbols B and F as being equivalent to a determined second game element overlaying a second portion of the result of the play of the first game.
Regarding claim 2, Visocnik discloses wherein the play of the second game is associated with a second game award generator comprising a plurality of sections which display a plurality of second game awards, wherein a first of the sections of the second game award generator has a predefined relationship to a second of the sections of the second award generator, (“during the bonus sequence, the processor will select and control the display to display a series of new games without the player making any additional wagers until termination of the bonus sequence”, par. 0013 and fig. 5 show bonus symbol 24 being displayed in a plurality of sections).
Regarding claim 6, Visocnik discloses wherein the second game triggering event occurs based on the result of the play of the first game, (“bonus sequences, which are triggered by the player obtaining certain outcomes during play of the primary game”, par. 0003).
Regarding clam 7, Visocnik discloses A method of operating a gaming system, (“The present invention relates to electronic, video, slot machine games and game methods”, par. 0001), the method comprising for each of a plurality of concurrently portions of a first game, (“The bonus symbol 24 persists in its assigned position during the segue to the display of the next outcome based upon the next free spin of the bonus event, e.g. during the display of the reels 22a-e spinning, in its overlying or underlying or sharing position as suggested in FIG. 3”, par. 0090 and fig. 3), wherein the Examiner views bonus symbol 24 appearing while the symbols are spinning as being equivalent to concurrently played portions of a first game. Visocnik further discloses determining, by a processor, a result of that portion of the first game, (“FIG. 4 shows the display for the outcome of the subsequent free spin during the bonus event. The spinning of the reels 22a-e can be viewed without being completely obscured during the display of the segue”, par. 0090), wherein for the plurality of concurrently played portions of the first game, the result of at least one portion of the first game is at least partially based on the result of another portion of the first game, (“The subsequent spin outcome is depicted in FIG. 4. The bonus symbol 24 now occupies the same coordinate with a new base game symbol "B”, par. 0091), wherein the Examiner views the spin outcome including the bonus symbol as being equivalent to the result being partially based on the result of another portion, with the bonus symbol being viewed as the other portion. Visocnik further discloses, displaying, by a single display device, the result of that portion of the first game, (fig. 4), and responsive to an occurrence of a second game triggering event, determining, by the processor, a second game element for a play of a second game, (“Alternatively or additionally, the movement of the bonus symbol 24 may be influenced by displayed game symbols. For example, and with reference to FIG. 6, if a "Cheese" game symbol has been displayed (shown on reel 22e), the bonus symbol 24 "Mouse" may move toward or to the "Cheese" symbol. When repositioned, the next free spin of the bonus event is prompted”, par. 0092), wherein the Examiner views the cheese symbol as being equivalent to an occurrence of a second game triggering event comprising a second game element for a play of a second game. Visocnik further discloses, while concurrently displaying at least a first part of a first result of at least one of the concurrently portions of the first game, (fig. 4), displaying, by the single display device, at least part of the determined second game element, (cheese symbol), wherein at least part of the determined second game element overlays a second part of the first result of the at least one of the concurrently played portions of the first game, (fig. 6 showing cheese symbol overlaying F symbol that was displayed in fig. 5).
Regarding claim 13, Visocnik discloses wherein the game element of the secondary event comprises an award generator comprising a plurality of sections which display a plurality of awards, (“FIG. 5 shows the movement of the bonus symbol to another position in the game display for the next free game”, par. 0028 and fig. 5).
Regarding claim 14, Visocnik discloses wherein a first of the sections of the award generator has a predefined spatial relationship to a second of the sections of the award generator, (fig. 5, part 24).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 3 – 5, 8 – 10, and 15 - 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visocnik (U.S. 2004/0048646) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Fasbender et al. (U.S. 2002/0086725).
Regarding claim 3, Visocnik, as cited above, discloses a gaming system, but is silent on disclosing a poker game. In a related art, Fasbender discloses a gaming system, (fig. 1), wherein the gaming system may be a slot machine game comprising poker card symbols, (“In order to initiate the primary game on an apparatus according to the invention, a player first selects certain paylines by, for example, placing wagers, or bets, on each selected payline of an array of symbols, such as poker card symbols”, par. 0018 and fig. 4), wherein Fasbender further discloses wherein the first game comprises a poker game and the results of the play of the first game comprises a final hand of playing cards, (“When the primary game is stud poker, once a "hand" of cards 36' have been dealt, each selected payline 35 is examined to determine whether the combination of cards 36' thereon comprises a winning hand”, par. 0042). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the poker game of Lamb into the art disclosed by Visocnik in order to provide poker features to enhance the game play of gaming events.
Regarding claim 4, Visocnik discloses, as cited above, discloses second game element overlaying the second portion of the result of the play of the first game, however, as stated above, is silent on disclosing a poker game, however, this is disclosed by Lamb as cited above.
Regarding claim 5, Visocnik discloses as cited above, discloses second game element overlaying the second portion of the result of the play of the first game, however, as stated above, is silent on disclosing a poker game, however, this is disclosed by Lamb as cited above.
Regarding claim 8, Visocnik discloses, as cited above, discloses second game element overlaying the second portion of the result of the play of the first game, however, as stated above, is silent on disclosing a poker game, however, Fasbender discloses a multiple hand poker game, each currently played portion of the first game comprises a hand of the multiple hand poker game and for each hand of the multiple hand poker game, the result of that portion of the first game comprises a plurality of playing cards of that hand, (“When play proceeds to a bonus round, as shown in FIG. 5, a bonus game is played. In the example depicted in FIG. 5, the bonus game is draw poker, with cards 36' of the original, dealt draw poker hand on bonus payline 38 being the same cards 36' as those that were present in a corresponding selected payline 35 from the primary game”, par. 0045 and fig. 5).
Regarding claim 9, Visocnik discloses, as cited above, the play of the second game is associated with a second game award generator comprising a plurality of sections which display a plurality of second game awards, a first of the sections of the second game award generator has a predefined relationship to a second of the sections of the second award generator, and the at least part of the determined second game element overlaying the second part of the first result of the at least one of the concurrently played portions of the first game, however, as stated above, Visocnik is silent on disclosing a poker game, however, Fasbender discloses displaying a multiple hand poker game, (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, Visocnik discloses, as cited above, play of the second game is associated with a plurality of second game award generators each comprising a plurality of sections which display a plurality of second game awards, a first of the sections of the second game award generator has a predefined relationship to a second of the sections of the second award generator, and the at least part of the determined second game element overlaying the second part of the first result of the at least one of the concurrently played portions of the first game however, as stated above, is silent on disclosing a poker game, however, Fasbender discloses displaying a multiple hand poker game, (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 15, Visocnik, as cited above, discloses an overlaying event, but is silent on disclosing a poker game, however, Fasbender discloses displaying a multiple hand poker game, (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 16, Visocnik, as cited above, discloses an overlaying event that overlays at least two symbols, but is silent on disclosing a poker game, however, Fasbender discloses displaying a multiple hand poker game, (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 17, Visocnik, as cited above, discloses an overlaying event that overlays at least a second portion of the result of the first game, but is silent on disclosing a poker game, however, Fasbender discloses displaying a multiple hand poker game, (fig. 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the double patenting rejection of claims 1 - 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The double patenting rejection of claims 1 – 17 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 2/24/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue, with respect to the 101 rejection of claims 1 – 17, that “the claimed methods of operating gaming systems are each directed to a practical application of the alleged abstract idea via providing a unique user interface that employs a single display device to accomplish what other gaming machines required multiple display devices to accomplish”. It is further argued that “the claims are directed to an improvement in operating a gaming system that reduces or eliminates any awkward transition from the display of first content to the display of second content by enabling the user to continue to see the first content that led to second content while dedicating enough space to display the second content. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed towards a gaming system comprising game elements that allows players to the game to gain a result. The claims are clearly directed towards managing a game which has been identified by the courts as abstract ideas. Furthermore, the claims are directed towards a gaming system wherein bonus symbols may overlay a portion of base game bonus symbols as a result of a triggering event on a single display device. The current claim language, more specifically, overlaying a portion of game symbols, does not reflect an improvement to gaming technology nor does it provide a technical solution to a problem.
References not cited
Berman et al. – 2018/0253932
Lamb – 2019/0139364
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1699. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/E.M.T/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/JUSTIN L MYHR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights