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, 4-8, 11-14, 16, and 19-20 are pending. Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 16, and 19-20 have been amended and claims 2-3, 9-10, 15, 17-18 have been canceled. No new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101, the Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative argues that the claims are not directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more. The Applicant’s representative asserts that the amended limitations of the claims are directed towards a technical solution comprising i) “software innovation that involves particular mathematical and graphical calculations and manipulations to present a novel user interface for users of the software program (e.g., the “additional game windows,” wherein only columns that do not contain a portion of the winning combination are spun when determining the additional game outcomes) which provide a unique manipulation of display screen in a way that provides an intuitive understanding to the user of the importance of said graphical manipulations in the context of the current instance of the software program’s execution” (see Remarks, pg. 8-10); ii) recites concrete improvement to computer performance for managing multiple game outcomes when a single round of gameplay expands into multiple gameplay instances (e.g., bonus game windows) (see Remarks, pg. 10); and iii) address a technical problem to execute multiple gameplay instances simultaneously that spawn from a single gameplay instance) with the multi-window display architecture (see Remarks, pg. 10-11). The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to a software innovation argument, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claim recites a solution to provide a user interface for users of the game software program (e.g., the additional game windows) to provide a display screen in a way that provides an intuitive understanding to the user of the game program. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed game software is a set of rules and/or instructions to manage the game and is not indicative a technical solution or an improvement to computer functionality. Specifically, the claim recites limitations that the courts have indicated is indicative of arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists the user of the software to process the game that is analogous to Trading Techs (see MPEP 2106.05(a)I – citing Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 899 F.3d. 1281, 1287-88). Furthermore, the claim recites result oriented functional language to be performed by the game software that does not provide sufficient technical details that would amount to solving a technical solution to a technical problem that would integrate the claim into a practical application.
With respect the claims reciting a concrete improvement to computer performance, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claim manages multiple game outcomes when a single round of gameplay expands into multiple gameplay instances (e.g., bonus game windows). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Managing multiple game outcomes when a single round of gameplay expands into multiple gameplay instances (e.g., bonus game windows) is directed to the abstract idea itself (e.g., managing a game) which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Finally, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims address technical problem to execute multiple gameplay instances simultaneously that spawn from a single gameplay instance). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite result-oriented functional limitations that indicate a desired result that do not provide the technical details to how the management of processing resources are performed that could be construed as “internal computer operations” that itself would be an improvement. In contrast, the claims recite limitations such as: “in response to determining that the trigger condition exists, control the display system to present one or more additional game windows…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…when determining the additional game outcomes”; and “modify the base outcome based on at least one of the additional game outcomes…if the respective additional game outcome improves upon the base game outcome” which recite rules and/or instructions for managing the game. It follows that the claims recite steps and/or instructions that amount to mere instructions 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 which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection under 35 USC 101 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, 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, and wherein only columns that do not contain a portion of the winning combination are spun when determining the additional game outcome; -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process; 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. 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
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