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, 4, 8, and 15 have been amended and no new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea but are directed to a technical solution to problems unique to electronic gaming machines that display overlay prize symbols at particular symbol positions (see Remarks, pg. 12-14). Specifically, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims are a machine-level improvement to electronic gaming machine for “coordinating position-based overlay-symbol animation, deterministic symbol-position updates across spins, memory-based persistence of those symbols for the same bet combination, and subsequent reuse of the stored position state in a later game instance so that the gaming device consistently controls display state and position-based award outcomes across iterative play” (see Remarks, pg. 12-16). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Steps and/or instructions that are directed to “coordinating position-based overlay-symbol animation, deterministic symbol positions updates across spins, persistence of those symbols for the same bet combination, and subsequent reuse of the position state in a later game instance to control display state and position-based award outcomes across iterative play are directed to managing the reel game and the corresponding game outcomes that include an overlay-symbol for a bet combination. Whether the claims are directed to the current play or an iterative play of the game, the limitations are found to recite steps and/or instructions for managing a reel game. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the analysis under Step 2A-prong 1 has been maintained below.
The Applicant’s representative further argues that the claims recite additional elements that as a whole reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology because it requires the processor to “animate overlay prize symbols at respective symbol positions in a first game instance, retain those overlay prize symbols, move them downward by one symbol position each spin, maintain in memory a persistent state defining the respective symbol position of each overlay prize symbol for a certain bet combination, and then animate the retained overlay prize symbols at those stored respective symbol positions in a subsequent game instance in which the persistent state is applied to a next instance of the same bet combination” (see Remarks, pg. 16-19). Specifically, the Applicant’s representative argues that the machine operation of a specific positional-state mechanism constitute an improvement to electronic gaming device technology that reflects an improvement to electric gaming machines by a positional animation and persistence mechanism implemented by a gaming controller and memory in an electronic gaming machine. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recited positional animation is not found to be indicative of an integration into a practical application because the positional animation, which presents the overlay-symbol in outcome of the iterative gameplay amounts to arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assist the player in processing the game information more quickly which does not show an improvement to computer-functionality and/or to a common place business method implemented on a computer to implement the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(a) I – Example viii.; and 2106.05(a)II – Example i). Moreover, a persistence mechanism of the game which allows for iterative game play is directed to rules and/or instructions for managing a persistence rule in the symbol reel game which is directed to the abstract idea itself. Finally, the additional limitations which are directed to implementing the electronic game by a gaming controller and memory of an electronic gaming machine is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it amounts to invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or providing a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h)). For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the analysis under Step 2A-prong 2 has been maintained below.
Finally, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claimed subject matter is eligible because they are directed to a specific improved electronic gaming device and satisfy the test under Step 2B because they amount to more than the abstract idea itself (see Remarks,. Specifically, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims recite an ordered combination of limitations that amounts to a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of a persistent state in a subsequent game instance. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite a series of steps and/or instructions directed to a specific rules for managing a reel game which are found to recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the claimed gaming device recited in the claims that include: “a display”, “a gaming controller having a processor and memory for storing data”, and an RNG output and/or by reference ton one or more lookup tables to manage the level of volatility during gameplay to comply with a given RTP are highly-generalized computer components and/or known techniques to one of ordinary skill in the art for conventional gaming devices (see Vancura, 0037-0040; Ubernaga, 0025). Step and/or instructions of managing the game using conventional components and techniques known to one of ordinary skill in the art are not found to amount to an inventive concept. It follows that the steps to manage the game in combination with the highly-generalized computer components known to one of ordinary skill in the art are not found to amount to significantly more but to instructions for managing the iterative gameplay of the reel game. For at least these reasons, the claims are not found to recite an ordered combination of non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of a specific machine but to implementing a reel game using a conventional gaming device and/or a conventional technological environment to implement the abstract idea and/or to satisfy regulatory requirements associated with wagering games. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the additional elements are not found to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
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 one or more of a plurality of overlay prize symbols, in a first game instance, each overlay prize symbol indicating a prize value -certain method of organizing human activity;
and enabling an underlying symbol to be viewable on the display, respectively,
control the display to retain the overlay prize symbols and move each of the overlay prize symbols down by one symbol position each spin until the movement causes the overlay prize symbols to move out of view on the display, - certain method of organizing human activity;
maintain, in memory, a persistent state that defines a respective symbol position of each overlay prize symbol for instances of a certain bet combination; - certain method of organizing human activity;
control the display to animate the retained overlay prize symbols at the respective symbol positions defined by the persistent state in a subsequent game instance in which the persistent state is applied to a next instance of the certain bet combination, - certain method of organizing human activity;
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 an overlay-prize symbol game including rules associated with iterative gameplay are 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 retain the overlay prize symbols” “control the display to animate the prize award reel strips” “using a random number generated by a random number generator and a weighted table” and “control the display to animate a win indicative of the prize values” 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 retain the overlay prize symbols” “control the display to animate the prize award reel strips” and “control the display to animate a win indicative of the prize values” 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
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
Prosecution Insights