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 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 1-18, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-18, 20-21 recite an abstract idea of (organizing of human activity). The claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
More specifically, regarding Step 1, of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2a1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Claims 1-13 recite: a game controller for an Electronic Gaming Machine (EGM) comprising:
a processor circuit; and a memory coupled to the processor circuit, the memory comprising machine readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to:
initiate execution of an electronic game session on the EGM for a first player, the electronic game session comprising a plurality of electronic wagering games at the EGM;
determine, for each electronic wagering game of the plurality of wagering games, whether a game result for the electronic wagering game comprises a first game symbol;
based on a determination that the game result comprises the first game symbol, control a Graphical User Interface (GUI) presented on a display device of the EGM to increase a first bonus game award counter value at the EGM by a first predetermined counter value;
based on a first bonus game trigger event, initiate execution of a first electronic bonus game at the EGM;
control the GUI to presented on the display device of the EGM sequentially provide, in the first electronic bonus game, a first plurality of electronic bonus game awards corresponding to the first electronic bonus game award counter value, wherein a first subset of the first plurality of electronic bonus game awards modifies a second subset of the first plurality of bonus game awards; and
award a first total electronic bonus game award based on the first plurality of electronic bonus game awards to the first player.
Claims 14-18, 20-21 recite similar limitations to claims 1-13.
The underlined limitations recite an abstract idea of organizing human activity. The claim limitations recite steps of managing a game session with bonus awards and rules to increase the bonus game award counter value and rules to award the bonus game awards.
Claims 14-18, 20-21 recite similar limitations to claims 1-13 above and recite the same abstract idea as indicated above.
Step 2a2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration of whether the claim recites additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application.
An additional element or combination of additional elements that are indicative of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application include:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Additional elements or combination of additional elements that are not indicative of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application include:
-Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1-18, 20-21 do not apply a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing.
Claims 1-18, 20-21 are not directed to an improvement to a function of a computer. There is no improvement to a technical field. In addition, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way.
The additional elements of: a game controller for an EGM comprising: a processor circuit; a memory; a GUI, an EGM comprising a display, input device game controller, memory and GUI are recited at a high level of generality and are directed to a generic computer or generic computer components used to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements generally link the abstract idea to an electronic embodiment.
The additional elements identified above considered alone and in combination fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception.
Claims 1-18, 20-21 include the additional elements of a processor circuit, a memory and a gaming device, a graphical user interface or display device. Claims 14-19 includes additional elements of a display or graphical user interface, an input device. The additional elements are well known routine and conventional. Chen et al. (US 2006/0116208) discloses is typical or well known for gaming machines to incorporate a processor, a memory, a display and an input device (paragraphs 5).
The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claims further recite the abstract idea. The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. Applicant argues that the claims recite a specific ordered combination of limitations that, among other things, relate to execution of electronic wagering games. More specifically, the claims recite specific components, such as a game controller, an Electronic Gaming Machine (EGM) and a Graphical User Interface (GUI) presented on a display device of the EGM. As can be appreciated, the pending claims do not seek to "tie up" any judicial exception generally such that others cannot practice it. Among other things, the pending claims clearly recite much more than just an abstract idea of methods of organizing human activity. For instance, the pending claims are not directed to contracts, legal obligations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, which are defined as certain methods of organizing human activity. Rather, the claims recite very specific device operations that include, inter alia, initiating execution of an electronic game session on the EGM, controlling the GUI presented on the display device the EGM, and initiating execution of an electronic bonus game on the EGM in a manner as specifically recited in the pending claims. As can be appreciated, the pending claims "clearly do not seek to tie up any judicial exception such that others cannot practice it" and are in fact patent.
However, the claim limitations recite steps of managing a game session with bonus awards and rules to increase the bonus game award counter value and rules to award the bonus game awards. The device generally links the use of the judicial exception to an electronic embodiment.
Part 2A Prong 1
Applicant argues that the pending claims are not directed to and cannot be construed as organizing human activity. Similarly to McRO patents, the pending claims recite a combined order of specific processes that initiate execution of an electronic game session on an EGM, control a GUI presented on a display device the EGM, and initiate execution of an electronic bonus game on the EGM in a manner as specifically recited in the pending claims. (See MPEP 2106.05(c)) The fact that the result may not be a tangible product did not preclude patentability under Section 101, because in McRO, the underlying concern was "not tangibility, but preemption." Id. at 1315. Because the claims were directed to a specific process, the court found they were patent eligible and did not preempt all future development in automatically animating characters.
However, the claims recite an abstract idea of organizing human activity. The claim limitations recite steps of managing a game session with bonus awards and rules to increase the bonus game award counter value and rules to award the bonus game awards. The game controller and graphical user interface are directed to a generic computer or generic computer components used to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements generally link the abstract idea to an electronic embodiment.
Part 2A Prong 2
Applicant argues that the claims as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant cites the Dictionary on the term Abstract idea. However, whether a claim is abstract is based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Applicant argues that the pending claims properly integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application. The pending claims address a technical problem associated with executing bonus games within an electronic game. Specifically, because the prizes are awarded sequentially, each prize may modify previous or future prizes in the sequence differently based on the order in which the prizes are awarded. In this manner, many different and unique prize mechanics may be provided that can heighten the excitement for the player, add depth of experience, and increase the bonus win possibilities.
The management of awarding prizes is not a technical solution. The management of awarding prizes to games is a management of a game. A management of a game is a management of a social activity, and therefore an organization of human activity. There is no improvement to the function of a computer, technology or a technical field.
Step 2B
Applicant argues that the claims amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Applicant argues that the combination of the elements amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. However, no specific argument has been made explaining why the combination of elements amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea. The additional elements, and the ordered additional elements generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
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 Jasson H Yoo whose telephone number is (571)272-5563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571 270-7625. 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.
/JASSON H YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights