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, 9-10, and 18-19 have been amended and no new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative asserts arguments to address the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 103. Specifically, the Applicant’s representative argues under 35 USC 101 that i) the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and are not integrated into a practical application (see Remarks, pg. 7-10) and ii) the claims are directed to “significantly more” than the abstract idea (see Remarks, pg. 10). Additionally, the Applicant’s representative in response to the rejection under 35 USC 103, the traverses the rejection of claims 1-20 over Acres in view of Uberuaga (see Remarks, pg. 10-11). The Applicant’s arguments are addressed in the sections below.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101, the Applicant’s representative argues that claims are not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A-prong 1. In particular, the Applicant’s representative asserts that similar to Example 37, the claims are not directed to any judicial exception. The Applicant’s representative argues that the claims do not recite action by “a processor” does not recite a method of organizing human activity at least because it requires a processor access computer memory indicative of application usage” (see Remarks, pg. 8). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that the claims do not recite “a unique data structure in computer memory to determine the application usage to make changes to the user interface” similar to the recited subject matter of Example 37 of the 2019 PEG. As acknowledged by the Applicant’s representative, the claims recite generating an “RNG call outcome, a processor iteratively accessing and modifying the game outcome including the matrix of symbol positions” based upon the RNG outcome which is not directed to “a unique data structure” or a determination of “application usage” but directed to rules and/or instructions to manage a symbol game in accordance with conventional regulatory requirements associated with wagering games. Moreover, the claim recite a desired result (e.g., RNG call outcome) without any details of how to a solution to iteratively accessing and modifying the game outcome that would could be construed as an improvement to the functioning of a computer and/or to a different field of technology. Furthermore, the recitation of the RNG is invoked in it ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks as is typical of managing a wagering game in a regulatory environment. For instance, in contrast with Example 37, the claim does not recite a determination of application usage but merely recites a computer program executed by a processor for managing the game rules and/or instructions for the symbol game (e.g., at least one memory device with instructions stored thereon and at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory device). These steps to display and/or present the symbol positions for an optimal or suboptimal outcome are not similar to the case in Example 37 because the instantly claimed interface does not “determine an amount of use” that transforms the application but merely arranges transactional information associated with managing the game to indicate to the player the progress of the game that is neither an improvement to the computer functionality and/or an improvement to a different technology or field. For at least this reason, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the claims are still found to recite a certain method of organizing human activity under 35 USC 101 which is maintained below.
With respect to arguments that the claims are eligible under Step 2A-prong 2, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims integrate the claim into a practical application because they show an improvement to another technology such as control “randomness and RTP by generating suboptimal outcomes based on game outcomes” (see Remarks, pg. 9 – citing to Specification, 0022-0024). A review of the cited portions recite that technical problems are associated with “a skill component in an electronic game involves controlling RTP” and “a skill component in an electronic game involves increasing variability and randomness of game outcomes and display outcomes” that presents the idea of a solution but does not adequately provide the details as to how the solution is achieved. Moreover, generating optimal and suboptimal game outcomes appear to be directed to steps for managing a symbol game and/or game rules and does not appear to improve the functionality of the computer and/or to a different technological field (e.g., RNG calls is merely invoked to perform an well-known technique in the gaming arts) (see Vancura, 0037-0040). For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because generating the outcomes using a first RNG-base outcome, and iteratively generating the suboptimal game outcome based on a second-RNG outcome is found to be directed to instructions for managing game rules to generate a game outcome which is directed to a certain method of organizing human activity that does not integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection has been maintained below.
With respect to Step 2B, the Applicant’s representative argues that for the same reasons as discussed with Step 2A. The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the same reasons as discussed above and incorporates those arguments by referenced herein. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection has been maintained below.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103, the Applicant’s arguments are have been reviewed and after further consideration are persuasive. It follows that the rejections under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn.
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. An electronic gaming system comprising at least one memory device with instructions stored thereon, and at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory device, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
cause to be displayed on a display device a game interface including a matrix having a plurality of symbol positions for displaying a symbol within each symbol position;
generate, based on a first RNG call outcome, an optimal game outcome; -certain method of organizing human activity;
iteratively generate a suboptimal game outcome based on the generated optimal game outcome by: - certain method of organizing human activity;
generating a second game outcome based on the optimal game outcome by modifying, based on a second RNG call outcome, at least a portion of the optimal game outcome; -certain method of organizing human activity;
determining whether the second game outcome is a suboptimal game outcome;-certain method of organizing human activity; and
generating a new second game outcome based upon a determination that the second game outcome is not a suboptimal game outcome; - certain method of organizing human activity;
display at least a portion of the suboptimal game outcome in the matrix;
cause to be displayed a prompt to select from a plurality of user options to modify at least one symbol of the at least a portion of the suboptimal game outcome displayed in the matrix;
modify, based on a selection received from a user of one of the plurality of user options, the symbols displayed in the matrix; -certain method of organizing human activity; and
evaluate the symbols displayed in the matrix to determine if the displayed symbols result in the optimal game outcome being displayed. -certain method of organizing human activity;
The limitations, as underlined above, are found to recite a series of rules and/or instructions to manage a symbol game outcome which is analogous to a certain method of organizing human activity. For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, 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: “cause to be displayed on a display device a game interface including a matrix having a plurality of symbol positions for displaying a symbol within each symbol position;” “based on a first RNG call outcome”, “based on a second RNG call outcome”, “display at least a portion of the suboptimal game outcome in the matrix;” and “cause to be displayed a prompt” are found to recite mere instructions to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(g)). Moreover, the remaining limitation such as: “[a]n electronic gaming system comprising at least one memory device with instructions stored thereon, and at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory device, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:” is found to recite instructions to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a technological environment to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h)). For at least these reasons, the additional limitations are not found to 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: “an electronic gaming system”, “at least one memory device with instructions stored thereon”, “at least one processor” and “a display device” which when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements are found to invoke highly-generalized computer components as a tool 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 instance, Vancura (US 2010/0029381 A1) discloses a conventional gaming system comprises at least one electronic gaming system, at least one memory device with instructions stored thereon, at least one processor, and a display device to generate outcomes for a game are well-known, routine, and convention to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0008, 0037-0040). For at least these reasons, the additional elements are not found either individually and/or as a combination of elements found to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Regarding independent Claims 10 and 19, the claims recite substantially the same subject matter as discussed with respect to independent Claim 1 above. However, the claims differ in that they are directed to the subject matter in a method and non-transitory computer-readable storage media embodiment. These differences do not change the analysis above which is incorporated herein. For at least substantially the same reasons as independent Claim 1, Claims 10 and 19 are found to be directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding dependent Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20, the claims have been reviewed and analyzed and were found to each recite additional limitations that were directed to at least one of a grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a); mere instructions to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g); and providing 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