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.
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 having a plurality of symbol positions; and
a gaming controller having a processor and memory storing data indicative of a plurality of prize award reel strips including a plurality of prize award symbols, and instructions, which, when executed, cause the processor to at least:
control the plurality of symbol positions to animate at one or more of a plurality of overlay prize symbols, the plurality of overlay prize symbols having a plurality of prize values, respectively, -certain method of organizing human activity;
and enabling an underlying symbol to be viewable on the display, respectively,
control the display to animate the prize award reel strips having prize award symbols being spun and stopped at a plurality of stopping positions selected for the prize award reel strips with respect to the symbol positions using a random number generated by a random number generator and a weighted table to maintain a return-to-player target, and
PNG
media_image1.png
15
5
media_image1.png
Greyscale
-certain method of organizing human activity and/or mathematical relationship;
control the display to animate a win indicative of the prize values on the overlay prize symbols at the symbol positions that overlay the prize award symbols at the stopping positions selected. – certain method of organizing human activity;
The limitations, as underlined above, are found to recite a series of rules and/or instructions for managing a prize symbol game which is analogous to a certain method of organizing human activity (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). For at least this reason, the claims 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 remaining limitations such as: “a display having a plurality of symbol positions;” “a gaming controller having a processor and memory storing data indicative of a plurality of prize award reel strips including a plurality of prize award symbols, and instructions, which, when executed, cause the processor to at least:” “control the plurality of symbol positions to” “and enabling an underlying symbol to be viewable on the display, respectively,” “control the display to” “using a random number generated by a random number generator and a weighted table” and “control the display to animate” which recite steps and/or instructions that amount to mere instructions to 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 example, the steps “a display having a plurality of symbol positions” “and enabling an underlying symbol to viewable on the display, respectively,” “control the display to” and “control the display to animate” recite instructions to 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)). The step such as: ““using a random number generated by a random number generator and a weighted table” recites only the idea of an outcome but fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished and appears to use known techniques to ensure fairness and with highly regulated implementations of wagering games for determining outcomes which amount to mere instructions to apply the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The remaining limitations such as “a gaming controller having a processor and memory storing data indicative of a plurality of prize award reel strips including a plurality of prize award symbols, and instructions, which, when executed, cause the processor to at least:” and “control the plurality of symbol positions to” recite steps that use highly-generalized computer components to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h)). For at least these reasons, the additional limitations are not found to provide a meaningful limitation that 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 gaming machine”, “a display”, “a game controller having a processor and memory storing data”, “a random number generator”, and “a weighted table” when viewed individually and/or as a collection amount have been invoked 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 machine comprises a display, a game controller having a processor and storing program data, a random number generator to generate random outcomes (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0008, 0037-0040). Moreover, Uberuaga et al. (US 2020/0074791) discloses a conventional gaming machine technique which utilizes an RNG output and/or by reference to one or more look up (e.g., weighted) tables to increase the level of volatility during gameplay while complying with a given RTP (see Uberuaga, 0025). For at least these reasons, the additional elements when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements are not found to amount to significantly more but are recited to 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 amount to significantly more under Step 2B.
Regarding independent Claims 8 and 15, recite substantially the same subject matter as independent Claim 1 analyzed above is incorporated herein. The independent Claims are different in that they are directed to a method performed by the gaming machine and a non-transitory computer-readable medium of a gaming system which does not change or alter the analysis discussed above. For at least these reasons, independent Claims 8 and 15 are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding dependent Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, the claims have been analyzed and were found to further recite at least one of: a grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)), mere instructions to apply the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). For at least these reasons, claims 1-20 are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
Conclusion
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