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 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 pass step 1 of the test for eligibility.
As per step 2A prong one, the claims are evaluated to determine whether the claims recite a judicial exception. Representative claim 1 recites, with emphasis added:
A method for operating an electronic game, the method comprising:
executing, by a processor of a gaming system, a gaming session of an electronic game, the electronic game comprising a plurality of operable features and each operable feature comprising a plurality of symbols;
detecting, by the processor of the gaming system, a first predefined condition for the plurality of symbols on the plurality of operable features, wherein the first predefined condition corresponds to a win of a free game within the gaming session;
in response to detecting the first predefined condition and prior to initiation of the free game within the gaming session, providing, by the processor of the gaming system, a bonus-building session within the gaming session, the bonus-building session comprising a plurality of bonus-building games.
The above underlined portion of representative claim 1 recites a judicial exception because they are certain methods of organizing human activity, as they are following rules or instructions, as the invention is directed towards rules for conducting a wagering game. Further they are mental processes as a human could perform the steps merely mentally or with pen and paper, as a human could provide operable features with symbols (such as a generic set of playing cards), determine a condition related to the symbols to provide free games, and then provide bonus building sessions with the operable features.
Next, as per step 2A prong two, the claims are evaluated to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
The elements recited above that are not underlined in representative claim 1 comprise the additional elements. As discussed in more detail below, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
A processor of a gaming system is/are not an integration into a practical application as it is mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Looking at 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.
Next, as per step 2B, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception.
A processor of a gaming system does not amount to significantly more as it is mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception. Looking at 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.
The dependent claims of [6] are further rejected under 101 for the reasons described above as they simply further define the abstract idea (which makes the abstract idea no less abstract) without adding significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) and do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Looking at 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.
Further, taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DuBose (US 20110117988).
In claims 1, 8, and 15 DuBose discloses
Executing, by a processor of a gaming system, a gaming session of an electronic game, the electronic game comprising a plurality of operable features and each operable feature comprising a plurality of symbols (figure 1, the reels are the operable features with the symbols upon them)
Detecting by the processor of the gaming system, a first predefined condition for the plurality of symbols on the plurality of operable features, wherein the first predefined condition corresponds to a win of a free game within the gaming session (figure 1 #120 provides free games)
In response to detecting the first predefined condition and prior to initiation of the free game within the gaming session, providing by the processor of the gaming system, a bonus building session within the gaming session, the bonus building session comprising a plurality of bonus building games (paragraphs 30-32, figures 3 and 3A, fifteen spins are provided on a special set of reels)
In claims 2 and 9, DuBose discloses the electronic game comprises a slots game wherein the plurality of operable features comprises a plurality of reels and wherein detecting the predefined condition is based on the plurality of symbols appearing on the plurality of reels (figure 1)
In claims 3, 10, and 16, DuBose discloses the bonus building session is limited to a predefined number of consecutive bonus building games in the plurality of bonus building games available to a player of the electronic game without a win in the consecutive bonus building games (paragraphs 30-32, figure 3. Bottom of figure 3 says “spin ends when a combination is won or 15 spins have occurred”. This is explained further in paragraph 32 wherein a winning combination causes a feature attribute to be awarded, otherwise the full 15 spins occur when there is no winning combination.)
In claims 4, 11, and 17, DuBose discloses in response to no win occurring within the predefined number of consecutive bonus building games in the plurality of bonus building games available to a player of the electronic game, initiating, by the processor of the gaming system, the free game (paragraph 32, “if, during the fifteen initial spins, no winning combinations appear, the player may […] play the original five free games”)
In claims 5, 12, and 18, DuBose discloses detecting, by the processor of the gaming system, a second predefined condition for the plurality of operable features, wherein the second predefined condition corresponds to a win in the gaming session, and in response to detecting the second predefined condition for the plurality of operable features, adding by the processor of the gaming system, a win amount corresponding to the detected second predefined condition for the plurality of operable features to a win meter for the electronic game (paragraph 25-26, winning combinations are awarded based on the paytable and adjusted based on the amount wagered)
In claims 6, 13, and 19, DuBose discloses a progressive award and wherein the win meter indicates an amount of the progressive award (paragraph 33 discloses a progressive award)
In claims 7, 14, and 20, DuBose discloses detect presence of the symbol indicating the multiplier amount on a feature of the plurality of features and in response to detecting the presence of the symbol indicating the multiplier amount on the feature of the plurality of features, apply the multiplier amount indicated by the detected symbol to a corresponding symbol in the free game (figure 3 shows the multiplier amount for the various possible outcomes, as such these symbols indicate these multiplier amounts)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS HAYNES HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-3905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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.
/THOMAS H HENRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715