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 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 judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed to at least one of abstract idea groupings, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines (Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity). Further, 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 Eligibility Guidance
More specifically, regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a system and/or process, which is are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A-1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 recites the following, with the abstract ideas highlighted in bold, including an indication as to the abstract idea grouping(s) to which the indicated limitations belong to, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines. Independent claims 11 and 19, having substantially similar features, were also analyzed and to which the following conclusion is also applicable:
1. A system 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:
in response to a bonus game initiation trigger during play of a wagering game at a gaming device, initiate a bonus game at the gaming device comprising a plurality of bonus game spins (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
display, on a display device of the gaming device, a plurality of reel sets comprising a first subset of active reel sets and a second subset of inactive reel sets, wherein each inactive reel set of the second subset is associated with a respective quantity of activation symbols required to activate the inactive reel set (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity); and
for each bonus game spin:
display a plurality of game symbols in each active reel set of the first subset (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
in response to a particular game symbol of the plurality of game symbols comprising an activation symbol, decrement the quantity of activation symbols required to activate each inactive reel set of the second subset by a symbol value of the activation symbol (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
in response to the quantity of a particular inactive reel set of the second subset decrementing to zero, activate the particular inactive reel set (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity); and
in response to a particular game symbol of the plurality of game symbols comprising an instant activation symbol, activate a first inactive reel set of the second subset, wherein each activated reel set is an active reel set in the first subset for subsequent bonus game spins (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity).
The limitations in claim 1 (as well as claim(s) 11 and 19) recite an abstract idea included in the groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, connected to technology only through application thereof using generic computing elements (e.g., a processor circuit, a memory, a display device, etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity. According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines:
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include:
1. Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices (including hedging (i.e., wagering), insurance, mitigating risk);
2. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
3. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The interaction encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping.
Specifically, the instant claims include functions/limitations, as highlighted in the independent claim above, that constitute at least:
A. Following rules and/or instructions, such as including the functions related to the playing of a wagering game, which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People. These sets of rules are interpreted as at least certain methods of organized human activity insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing or following the set of rules or instructions concerning a game while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in the claims.
Regarding dependent claims 2-10, 12-17 and 20:
Each claim is dependent either directly or indirectly from the independent claim identified above and includes all the limitations of said independent claim. Therefore, each dependent claim recites the same abstract idea as identified above. Each of the dependent claim further describes additional aspects of the abstract idea, i.e., additional aspects to the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. For example, some dependent claims merely provide additional Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity to be performed and/or additional insignificant extra-solution activity, without anything more significant to establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A-2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-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
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-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 1-20 clearly do not improve the functioning of a computer, as they only incorporate generic computing elements, do not effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Similarly, 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 claimed invention does not suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer components are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of “a processor circuit, a memory, a display device”, etc. used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility. These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer,’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Further, the claims would require structure that is beyond generic, such as structure that can be interpreted analogous to a general purpose structure and general purpose computing elements in that they represent well-understood, routine, conventional elements that do not add significantly more to the claims. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. The elements of a processor circuit, a memory, a display device are well known conventional devices used to electronically implement a game as evidence by U.S. 2004/0204228, which discloses that a conventional gaming machine comprises elements such as a processor circuit, a memory and a display device to control the overall operation of the gaming machine (¶58). See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The dependent claims do not add “significantly more” for at least the same reasons as directed to their respective independent claims, at least based on the position, as discussed above, that each of the dependent claims merely provide additional limitations to further expand the abstract idea of the independent claims, without adding anything which would establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Consequently, consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penacho et al (U.S. 2023/0033113) in view of Chesworth et al (U.S. 2023/0186729).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 19, Penacho discloses:
a system (¶24, Fig. 1, gaming device 104) comprising:
a processor circuit (¶43, Fig. 2A, processor 204); and
a memory coupled to the processor circuit, the memory comprising machine readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit (¶44-45, Fig. 2A, memory 208 coupled to processor 204 which stores code and instructions executable by the processor 204), cause the processor circuit to:
in response to a bonus game initiation trigger during play of a wagering game at a gaming device, initiate a bonus game at the gaming device comprising a plurality of bonus game spins (¶33, ¶82-84, ¶87, bonus play is triggered based on a primary game outcome including a plurality of spins which are tracked via spin counter 526),
display, on a display device of the gaming device, a plurality of reel sets comprising a first subset of active reel sets and a second subset of inactive reel sets (¶87, Fig. 5, unlocked game window 502 and locked games 504, 506), wherein each inactive reel set of the second subset is associated with a respective quantity of activation symbols required to activate the inactive reel set (¶87, Fig. 5, for example locked game 504 requires six special symbols to unlock and locked game 506 requires 14 special symbols to unlock); and
for each bonus game spin:
display a plurality of game symbols in each active reel set of the first subset (¶87, unlocked reels 508-516 are spun to produce a random outcome);
in response to a particular game symbol of the plurality of game symbols comprising an activation symbol, decrement the quantity of activation symbols required to activate each inactive reel set of the second subset by a symbol value of the activation symbol (¶87, special symbols 528 are accumulated and each instance of the special symbol 528 causes a reduction of needed special symbols to unlock a next round);
in response to the quantity of a particular inactive reel set of the second subset decrementing to zero, activate the particular inactive reel set (¶87, locked game windows are unlocked when a threshold number of special symbols 528 are collected);
wherein each activated reel set is an active reel set in the first subset for subsequent bonus game spins (¶87, locked game windows are unlocked when a threshold number of special symbols 528 are collected for further play of the bonus game).
However, Penacho does not specifically disclose that:
in response to a particular game symbol of the plurality of game symbols comprising an instant activation symbol, activate a first inactive reel set of the second subset.
Chesworth teaches:
a gaming system (¶16), wherein a bonus game, comprising a series of free spins, is triggered based on a predetermined outcome achieved during play of a base game (¶46), wherein the bonus game includes a subset of unlocked reels (¶47, bottom array 210 is unlocked to begin bonus game play) and a subset of locked reels (¶47, middle array 212 and top array 214 are locked to begin bonus game play), and wherein in response to a particular game symbol of the plurality of game symbols comprising an instant activation symbol, activate a first inactive reel set of the second subset (¶53-56, a column filling stack of value-bearing symbols V in the second column of the unlocked array 210 causes the next locked array 212 to be unlocked).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the persistent wild stacks, as taught by Penacho, to instantly unlock a locked reel set for a further spin of a bonus round, as taught by Chesworth, in order to provide a game which allows a negative return on investment in the long run for players and yet is random and volatile enough to make players feel they can get lucky and win in the short run, thus appealing to players and encouraging prolonged and frequent player participation, and in turn, providing increased profitability for game operators (See Chesworth, ¶4).
Regarding claims 2 and 20, Penacho discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses:
selecting the inactive reel set associated with a lowest quantity of activation symbols required to activate the inactive reel set as the first inactive reel set (¶87, Fig. 5, the second game window504, which requires the fewest number of activation symbols, is activated first prior to the third game window 506, which requires more symbols to activate).
However, Penacho does not specifically disclose:
activating the inactive reel set in response to a particular game symbol of the plurality of game symbols comprising the instant activation symbol.
Chesworth teaches:
a gaming system (¶16), wherein a bonus game, comprising a series of free spins, is triggered based on a predetermined outcome achieved during play of a base game (¶46), wherein the bonus game includes a subset of unlocked reels (¶47, bottom array 210 is unlocked to begin bonus game play) and a subset of locked reels (¶47, middle array 212 and top array 214 are locked to begin bonus game play), and wherein in response to a particular game symbol of the plurality of game symbols comprising an instant activation symbol, activate a first inactive reel set of the second subset (¶53-56, a column filling stack of value-bearing symbols V in the second column of the unlocked array 210 causes the next locked array 212 to be unlocked).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the reel set activation progression, as taught by Penacho, to instantly unlock the locked reel set for a further spin of a bonus round, as taught by Chesworth, in order to provide a game which allows a negative return on investment in the long run for players and yet is random and volatile enough to make players feel they can get lucky and win in the short run, thus appealing to players and encouraging prolonged and frequent player participation, and in turn, providing increased profitability for game operators (See Chesworth, ¶4).
Regarding claim 3, Penacho discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses:
randomly selecting an inactive reel set as the first inactive reel set (¶96, the sequence of levels for a game is randomly selected using a random number generator).
However, Penacho does not specifically disclose:
activating the inactive reel set in response to a particular game symbol of the plurality of game symbols comprising the instant activation symbol.
Chesworth teaches:
a gaming system (¶16), wherein a bonus game, comprising a series of free spins, is triggered based on a predetermined outcome achieved during play of a base game (¶46), wherein the bonus game includes a subset of unlocked reels (¶47, bottom array 210 is unlocked to begin bonus game play) and a subset of locked reels (¶47, middle array 212 and top array 214 are locked to begin bonus game play), and wherein in response to a particular game symbol of the plurality of game symbols comprising an instant activation symbol, activate a first inactive reel set of the second subset (¶53-56, a column filling stack of value-bearing symbols V in the second column of the unlocked array 210 causes the next locked array 212 to be unlocked).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the reel set activation progression, as taught by Penacho, to instantly unlock the locked reel set for a further spin of a bonus round, as taught by Chesworth, in order to provide a game which allows a negative return on investment in the long run for players and yet is random and volatile enough to make players feel they can get lucky and win in the short run, thus appealing to players and encouraging prolonged and frequent player participation, and in turn, providing increased profitability for game operators (See Chesworth, ¶4).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Penacho discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the symbol value of each activation symbol is one (¶87, each special symbol 528 reduces the required number of symbols to unlock the next level by 1).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Penacho discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
for each bonus game spin, in response to each active reel set indicating a winning
game result, increment a bonus game award based on the winning game result (¶86, a pay evaluation is performed for each spin).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Penacho discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
after all of the bonus game spins, award the bonus game award at the gaming device (¶2, ¶86, pay evaluations are performed for each spin until no spin remain, wherein awards for each spin are added to a meter, at the conclusion of gameplay the credits are provided to the player).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Penacho discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
for a first bonus game spin, the first subset of active reel sets comprises one active reel set (¶87, Fig. 5, first unlocked game window 502), and the second subset of inactive reel sets comprises a plurality of inactive reel sets (¶87, Fig. 5, first locked game window 504 and second locked game window 506).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Penacho discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the plurality of inactive reel sets of the second subset are arranged vertically above the one active reel set of the first subset (Fig. 5, wherein locked game windows 504 and 506 are arranged vertically above unlocked game window 502).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, Penacho discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the plurality of inactive reel sets of the second subset are arranged vertically in ascending order based on the respective quantity of activation symbols required to activate each inactive reel set (Fig. 5, wherein locked game windows 504 and 506 are arranged vertically above unlocked game window 502, and wherein locked game window 504 and locked game window 506 are arranged in order of the number of activation symbols they require for unlocking).
Regarding claims 10 and 18, Penacho discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
each reel set of the plurality of reel sets comprises a minimum of three reels, each reel comprising a minimum of three symbols (Fig. 9, wherein each reel set 902, 904 and 906, comprise 5 reels (908, 910, 912, 914 and 916) and each reel set comprises at least 3 symbols).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON PINHEIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-1350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00A-4:30P ET.
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.
/Jason Pinheiro/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/JUSTIN L MYHR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715