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 1-2, 4, 8-9, 11, 15, and 18 have been amended. No new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/8/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative traverses the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims are not directed to a certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process but to technical improvements in the technical field of electronic gaming (see Remarks, pg. 9-10). Specifically, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims address “selecting a number of yards to provide when advancing toward the red zone” through a technical solution wherein different lookups and/or lookup tables are utilized depending on a current position on the ball on the field that is present in the specification. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite a series of steps and/or instructions to manage at least one play outcome in a pick feature of a game. In particular, the claims are found to recite a result-oriented function by implementing different lookups and/or lookup tables that determine a selected outcome of the game as opposed to technical details as to how the inventor intended for the “different lookups and/or lookup tables” achieve the claimed function. Additionally, as noted in the Specification, while configuring a lookup table may involve engineering decisions about how different game features are combined, the use of lookup tables are used to conform with regulatory requirements to provide a minimum level of RTP for providing game volatility (see Specification, 0155-0156). Stated differently, configuring and maintaining an RTP is analogous to mitigating risk and/or hedging in a wagering game, which is analogous to a fundamental economic activity, to ensure the frequency of an event provides payouts that conform with regulatory requirements in gaming environments. 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 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 device comprising:
at least one memory with instructions stored thereon; and
at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
cause display of an electronic game comprising an advanceable path, wherein the advanceable path comprises a plurality of thresholds, and wherein a collection of collectibles is associated with advancement across the advanceable path;
cause advancement across the advanceable path based on the collection of the collectibles over one or more plays of the electronic game, wherein the advancement over the one or more plays is controlled based at least in part upon one or more first lookup tables selected based upon a current position on the advanceable path in order to control the advancement as being between the current position and a first threshold of advancement across the advanceable path;
determine to cause a pick feature to be triggered, wherein the pick feature is associated with the first threshold of advancement;- -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
cause display of the first threshold of advancement across the achievable path being achieved;
initiate the pick feature in response to the first threshold being achieved; -certain method of organizing human activity; and
for at least one play in the pick feature:
receive a selection of an advancement option of a plurality of advancement options, wherein each of the plurality of advancement options is associated with a number of collectibles based upon at least one lookup in at least one second lookup table based upon the current position satisfying the first threshold, the at least one second lookup table controlling advancement and a second threshold of advancement; -certain method of organizing human activity;
determine an amount of advancement between the first threshold of advancement and the second threshold of advancement across the advanceable path associated with the advancement option based upon the selection; -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
cause the amount of advancement to be displayed; and
cause the pick feature to end upon an end condition of a plurality of end conditions being satisfied, wherein the plurality of end conditions includes at least one of the second threshold of advancement being satisfied or a predetermined amount of advancement not being achieved across a predetermined number of plays of the pick feature. -certain method of organizing human activity;
The limitations, as underlined above, are found to recite limitations directed to a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite a series of steps and/or instructions to manage an electronic game. Moreover, certain limitations are found to recite a mental process because they recite an observation, judgment, evaluation, and/or opinion which is similar to concepts that are capable of being performed in the human mind. 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: “cause display of an electronic game comprising an advanceable path, wherein the advanceable path comprises a plurality of thresholds, and wherein a collection of collectibles is associated with advancement across the advanceable path;” “wherein the advancement over the one or more plays is controlled based at least in part upon one or more first lookup tables selected;” “cause the amount of advancement to be displayed;” “cause display of the first threshold of advancement across the achievable path being achieved;” “based upon at least one lookup in at least one second lookup table” “the at least one second lookup table controlling advancement and a second threshold of advancement;” and “cause the amount of advancement to be displayed;” recite result-oriented functionality that amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception, insignificant extra solution activity to display the transactional information of the electronic game to the user, and/or providing a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). The remaining limitations such as: “at least one memory with instructions stored thereon;” and “at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:” recite invoking highly generalized components 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 (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 device”, “at least one memory”, and “at least one processor” when viewed either individually and/or as a collection of elements recite highly-generalized computer components to perform well-known functions known to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts. For instance, Vancura (US 2010/0029381 A1) discloses a conventional electronic gaming device comprises at least one memory and at least one processor to implement instructions and steps of a game (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0008, 0037-0040). It follows that these additional elements amount to mere instructions to invoke 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, the additional elements are not 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 independent Claim 1. The claims are different in that they are directed to the embodiments of the subject matter in “at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “a method of electronic gaming”. These differences do not substantially modify the analysis as addressed above and is incorporated herein. For substantially the same reasons, independent 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 additional limitations have been reviewed and were found to further recite an additional limitations directed to a grouping of abstract ideas, invoke 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 1-20 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