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 .
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/28/26 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-14, 16, and 19-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8, and 16 have been amended and no new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's representative filed arguments, on 4/28/26, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative argues that claims 1, 4-8, 11-14, 16, and 19-20 rejected under 35 USC 101 are not directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more (see Remarks, pg. 8-11). Specifically, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims as amended recite a technical solution comprising i) “a software innovation that involves particular mathematical and graphical calculations and manipulations to present a novel user interface experience for users of the software program, ii) a “cascading” operations to control a display system to display and reveal the symbols of the additional game windows in a cascading manner” which recites a unique manipulation of display screen “real estate” in a way that provides an intuitive understanding to the user of the importance (and sequential operation) of said graphical manipulations in the context of the current instance of the software program’s execution, and iii) recite concrete improvements to computer performance – managing multiple game outcomes in a particular sequencing/order of operations, when a single round of gameplay expands into multiple game play instances (see Remarks, pg. 8-10). Furthermore, the Applicant’s representative maintains that the claims address a technical problem (i.e. managing or processing resources to execute and display multiple gameplay instances that spawn from a single gameplay instance simultaneously and in an intuitive and natural manner) with “a technical solution (i.e., the multi-window display architecture utilizing relative windows distances from an “anchor” base game window, sorting, and sequential results revelations to produce a novel cascading effect) which is a focus on computer software and performance, not human interactions. Additionally, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims are directed to the control of “a display system to present one or more additional game windows (e.g., copying out a sub-portion of symbols from one matrix into the copied windows) in a sequential e.g., cascading) manner in a way that is not well-known, routine, or conventional (see Remarks, pg. 11). The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments for the reasons provided below.
With respect to argument that the claims recite a technical solution, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims recite steps and/or instructions that involve “particular mathematical and graphical calculations and manipulations to present a novel user interface experience for users of the software program” (see Remarks, pg. 9-10). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite a series of steps and/or instructions for managing a symbol game (i.e., a software program) including rules for a feature of the game to add one or more additional game windows to present game outcomes to the user of the game which is directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. Moreover, the claims do not recite a particular mathematical and graphical calculation but defines the invention by rules and/or instructions for managing the game (i.e., multiple gameplay instances that spawn to present a multi-window game that presents additional game outcomes to the user) in with a desired result by invoking highly-generalized computer components to perform their ordinary function to implement the abstract idea. Stated differently, certain methods of organizing human activity which recite steps to manage a game including a base game and a game feature to copy a winning combination of symbols to additional game windows to present game outcomes of the game triggered by the base game are part of the abstract idea of managing a social activity. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument it not persuasive and the rejection has been maintained below.
With respect to the “cascading” operation and a specific and particular sequence of operations , the Applicant’s representative argues that this provides a concrete improvement to computer performance because it manages multiple game outcomes in a particular sequencing/order of operations that provides a display system to determine and populate the additional game outcomes for each of the additional game windows making it more “intuitive and natural for a player to be able to visually follow the “flow” of results of the additional game windows as they are displayed on the display system” which is an improvement to computer functioning that integrates the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2 (see Remarks, pg. 10-11). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted by the courts, arranging transactional information (i.e., steps and/or instructions for the order of operations to manage the symbol game) on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists “a player to be able to visually follow the “flow” of results of the game is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)I – citing to example vii-Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94). Furthermore, the claims recite a common place business method (i.e., - managing a symbol game including a game feature for providing additional windows to present additional game outcomes) being applied on highly generalized computer components by invoking general computer components as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea. It follows that the claims are not sufficient to show an improvement to technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)II) that would integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2. For at least these reasons, the rejection has been maintained below.
With respect to the additional argument that the claims are directed to computer software and performance not human interactions, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the computer operations “(determining outcomes, determining locations, determining a sequence of operations, controlling a display system according to a determined sequence of operations, etc.)” cannot be performance mentally but to computer functioning which indicates a practical application at Step 2A-prong 2. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed operations as stated above are directed to operations for managing a symbol game (e.g., determining outcomes; determining locations of symbols, determining a sequence of operations to manage a trigger of additional windows, a display system to present the steps of the game). It follows that the claims are not found to recite a technical solution on a focus of computer software and performance but steps and/or instructions that indicate a desires result of an idea of a game in which the computer components are invoked using their ordinary and general functions (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). It follows that these recited limitations are directed to at least one of: a grouping of abstract ideas and additional limitations which invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
With respect to the claims reciting significantly more, the Applicant’s representative argues that the presentation and sequential determination of cloned additional game outcomes are part of the claimed solution that is not well-known, routine, or conventional which amounts to significantly more under Step 2B (see Remarks, pg. 11). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Cloning additional game outcomes and presenting a sequential determination of a game sequence recite steps to managing a symbol game which is directed to the abstract idea itself. It follows that the steps and/or instructions abstract idea does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea but is directed to the abstract idea itself. 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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-14, 16, and 19-20 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 as indicated below:
1. A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable code executable by one or more processors to:
determine a base game outcome in a base game window based on a random number generator outcome -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
control a display system to present the base game outcome in the base game window; in response to the base game outcome,
determine whether a trigger condition exists - certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
in response to determining that the trigger condition exists, control the display system to present one or more additional game windows, wherein the computer readable code to control the display system to present the one or more additional game windows further comprises computer readable code to: copy a winning combination of symbols from a matrix of symbols of the base game window to a corresponding locations within a matrix of each of the one or more additional game windows;
determine additional game outcomes in each of the one or more additional game windows based on one or more additional random number generator outcomes, wherein each column of each matrix of the one or more additional game windows represents a reel set, wherein only columns that do not contain a portion of the winning combination are spun when determining the additional game outcomes, -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
wherein each of the one or more additional game windows has a determined location on the display system relative to the base game window, and wherein each of the one or more additional game windows is spun sequentially to determine its respective outcome in a cascading manner based on relative distance away from the base game window, beginning with the additional game window that is farthest away in location from the base game window and concluding with the additional game window that is closest in location to the base game window; - certain method of organizing human activity; and
modify the base game outcome based on at least one of the additional game outcomes in accordance with at least one of the additional game outcomes improving upon the base game outcome, wherein an additional game outcome is only used to modify the base game outcome if the respective additional game outcome improves upon the base game outcome – certain method of organizing human activity.
The limitations, as underlined above, are found to be directed to a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite steps and/or instructions for managing a game including rules and/or instructions for a game feature to provide additional game outcomes in additional game windows. Additionally, some of the limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, may be construed as a mental process as they recite an observation, judgment, evaluation, and/or opinion that is capable of being performed by a human. For at least these reasons, 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 additional limitations such as: “control a display system to present the base game outcome in the base game window; in response to the base game outcome,” “in response to determining that the trigger condition exists, control the display system to present one or more additional game windows, wherein the computer readable code to control the display system to present the one or more additional game windows further comprises computer readable code to: copy a winning combination of symbols from a matrix of symbols of the base game window to a corresponding locations within a matrix of each of the one or more additional game windows;” and “based on one or more additional random number generator outcomes” amount to mere instructions to apply 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 remaining limitations such as: “A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable code executable by one or more processors to” recite instructions to apply a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a technological environment to perform the abstract (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h)). For at least these reasons, the additional and remaining limitations of the claim are not found to integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements such as: “a non-transitory computer readable medium”, “one or more processors”, and “a display system” when viewed individually and/or as a combination of elements recite highly generalized computer components that are well-known, routine, and conventional. For instance, Vancura (US 2010/0029381 A1) discloses a conventional gaming system comprises a non-transitory computer readable medium, one or more processors, and a display system to implement a game that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the application (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0008, 0037-0040). It follows that the additional elements when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements do not amount to significantly more but recite steps to invoke a computer 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 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 16, the claims recite substantially the same subject matter but differ in that they are directed to a computer-implement method and/or a system. However, the differences do not alter the analysis as discussed above. For substantially the same reasons, independent claims 8 and 16 are found to be directed to a grouping of abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 4-7, 11-14, and 19-20, the additional limitations have been analyzed and reviewed. Each of the limitations were found to recite either 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, claims 1, 4-8, 11-14, 16, and 19-20 are found to be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights