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 Status
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended and no new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/5/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative traverses the rejection under 35 USC 101 because i) the claims are not directed to the alleged grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity under Step 2A-prong 1 (see Remarks, pg. 1-4); ii) integrate the claim into a practical application using a technical solution to a technological problem under Step 2A-prong 2 (see Remarks, pg. 4-9); and iii) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B (see Remarks, pg. 9-12). The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons provided below.
With respect to the Step 2A-prong 1, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims are not directed to any enumerated categories of “certain method of organizing human activity” that have been found to be directed to an abstract idea but recite a technical solution to problems unique to electronic gaming machines that “conduct feature-game instances across multiple windows while maintaining independent randomness per window after a mid-feature upgrade adds a new game play characteristics” (see Remarks, pg. 2-3). Specifically, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claimed technical solution to a technical problem that is unique to multi-window electronic gaming devices that avoid cross-window correlation of concurrent outcomes and maintaining independent randomness that do not arise in traditional single-window play by implementing separate RNG calls for each window (see Remarks, pg. 3-4). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As acknowledged by the Applicant’s representative the claims recite “conducting concurrent feature-game instances across multiple windows while maintaining independent randomness per window after a mid-feature upgrade adds a new game play characteristic” which amounts to a series of rules and/or instructions for managing a feature game. This is analogous to enumerated categories such managing a wagering game and/or managing a social activity including rules and/or instructions for the game. Moreover, whether the rules and/or instructions are directed to a single-window play or a concurrent double-window game, the claimed subject matter is directed to rules and/or instructions for managing a game and therefore not found to recite a technical solution to a technical problem but to the abstract idea itself. Furthermore, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claimed technical solution solves a technical problem for maintaining independent randomness pipelines by implementing separate RNG calls for each window, which recites a result-oriented desired result and not how the inventor intended for the technical solution to a technical problem. In contrast, the cited portions of the Specification indicate that the separate RNG calls for generating game outcomes are typical and/or conventional for wagering games to ensure game play outcomes are random and meet regulations for a game of chance (see Specification, 0005, 0042). It follows that the Examiner is not persuaded that the use of separate RNG calls for each window is a technical solution to a technical problem but mere invoking a random number generator to be used to perform its known function to meet regulatory standards that is known to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts. Furthermore, the cited portions of the Specification support the analysis that the claims do not recite a technical solution to a technical problem but are directed to rules and/or instructions for managing a wagering game which the courts have indicated is analogous to a certain method of organizing human activity (e.g., a fundamental economic practice) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)II A). For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the claims are found be directed to a grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A-prong 2.
With respect to Step 2A-prong 2, the Applicant’s representative maintains that even if amended claims 1 were classified as an abstract idea they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see Remarks, pg. 4-12). Specifically, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the amended claims as a whole reflect an improvement to electronic gaming device technology because they recite additional elements such as “obtain, for at least two game windows, separate random numbers from the random number generator via separate calls to the random number generator, generate independent game outcomes for the at least two game windows based at least in part on the separate random numbers” and “control the display to display the feature game instances initiated with the independent game outcomes”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Each of the additional elements recite result-oriented limitations and/or mere data gathering which when viewed individually and/or as whole amount to mere instructions to apply the exception by invoking a computer/conventional electronic gaming device 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 @106.05(f)-(h)). Moreover, as noted above, the use of separate RNG calls to generate an independent game outcomes is not an unconventional approach to one of ordinary skill in the electronic gaming arts but conventional use of a random number generator to ensure fairness and meet regulatory requirements (see Specification, 0005, 0042). It follows that the additional limitations are not found to integrate the claim into a practical application and/or supply a technical solution to a technical problem that arises from electronic gaming devices. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection has been maintained below under Step 2A-prong 2.
With respect to the Step 2B, the Applicant’s representative maintains that when the claims are viewed as a whole they recite additional elements such as obtaining separate random numbers via separate RNG calls per window, control the display to display the feature game instances initiated with independent outcomes, upon an upgrade condition, performing at least one additional instance with additional RNG calls per window to generate additional independent outcomes that amount to an inventive concept under Step 2B. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As addressed previously, the additional elements of the claims when viewed individually and/or as a combination of elements amount to rules and/or instructions to manage a feature game, mere instructions to invoke a conventional electronic gaming devices 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)-(hi). The instantly claimed invention recites rules and/or instructions for managing the feature game which is not similar to Claim 2 of Example 36 but merely to steps and/or instructions to manage a feature game by invoking a conventional electronic gaming device as a tool, perform 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, the Examiner has cited to Vancura (US 2010/0029381) which discloses conventional techniques and components of an electronic gaming device that include a random generator to provide random events associated with implementing a game (see Fig. 1, 0037-0040). It follows that the Applicant’s argument that the invoking multiple concurrent windows, added characteristics to the game, and the use of separate RNG calls to generate game outcomes is not found to amount to significantly more. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection 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 Claim 1 recites limitations directed to a grouping of abstract ideas such as:
1. A gaming device comprising:
a display; and
a controller having a processor and a memory storing a plurality of instructions, which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
control the display to display a base game from which at least one of a plurality of feature games is triggered, – certain method of organizing human activity
the base game displaying a plurality of symbols randomly selected from reel strips using a random number generated by a random number generator,
wherein at least one of the plurality of feature games comprises a first game play characteristic comprising conducting concurrent game instances in at least two game windows, upon a feature trigger condition being met in the base game in respect of a first feature game comprising at least the first game play characteristic, – certain method of organizing human activity
control the display to display a plurality of feature game instances in the at least two game windows, – certain method of organizing human activity;
obtain, for the at least two game windows, separate random numbers from the random number generator via separate calls to the random number generator,
generate independent game outcomes for the at least two game windows based at least in part on the separate random numbers,-certain method of organizing human activity;
control the display to display the feature game instances initiated with the independent game outcomes,
upon an upgrade condition corresponding to a second game play characteristic being met during one of the plurality of feature game instances in one of the at least two game windows, – certain method of organizing human activity
control the display to display at least one additional feature game instance with the second game play characteristic added,
obtain, for the at least two game windows, additional random numbers from the random number generator via additional calls to the random number generator,
generate additional independent game outcomes for the at least two game windows based at least in part on the additional random numbers,, and -certain method of organizing human activity
control the display to display each remaining feature game instance and the at least one additional feature game instance with the additional independent game outcomes. – certain method of organizing human activity.
The limitations, as underlined above, are found to recite a certain method of organizing human activity because they are directed to managing a feature game including rules and/or instructions to trigger additional game play characteristics. For at least this reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, are found to 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: “a display; and a controller having a processor and a memory storing a plurality of instructions, which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:” “control the display to display a base game”; “the base game displaying a plurality of symbols randomly selected from reel strips using a random number generated by a random number generator” “control the display to display a plurality of feature game instances”, “obtain, for the at least two game windows, separate random numbers from the random number generator via separate calls to the random number generator,” “control the display to display the feature game instances initiated with independent game outcomes,” “control the display to display at least one additional feature game instance with the second game play characteristic added,” “obtain, for the at least two game windows, additional random numbers from the random number generator via additional calls to the random number generator,” and “control the display to display each remaining feature game instance” are found to recite limitations that 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 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 such as: “a display”, “a controller having a processor and a memory storing a plurality of instructions”, and “a random number generator” when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements recite a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, perform 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 gaming device comprises a controller for processing instructions, a memory for storing the game instructions, and a display for presenting the game, and a random number generator for generating random events of the game are well-known and routine to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0008, 0037-0040). For at least these reasons, the additional elements when viewed individually and/or as a whole do not amount to significantly more under Step 2B.
Regarding independent Claim 8 and 15, the claims recite substantially the same subject matter as analyzed with respect to independent Claim 1 and is incorporated herein. The differences of Claims 8 and 15 are merely directed to the method and/or non-transitory computer-readable medium embodiments but does not change the analysis above. For at least these reasons, claims 8 and 15 are found to be directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
With respect to dependent Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, the claims have been reviewed and the limitations were found to recite additional limitations of a grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)), invoking 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 at least these reasons, claim 1-20 are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
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 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