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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/21/26 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 10, and 19 have been amended and no new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/21/26 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 abstract ideas without significantly more (see Remarks, pg. 11-14). Specifically, the Applicant’s representative argues that i) the claims are not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes but to technical improvements in the technical field of electronic gaming under Step 2A (see Remarks, pg. 11-13) and ii) the claims amount to significantly more than any exception under Step 2B (see Remarks, pg. 14). The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons provided in the sections below.
With respect to Step 2A, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims are not directed to a certain method of organizing human activity but to technical improvements in the technical field of electronic gaming. Specifically, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims employ a technical solution wherein “different lookups and/or lookup tables are utilized depending on a current position of the ball on the field” and utilizes a selected lookup table to be utilized depending on the current position of the ball on the field to include “an amount of yards to advance that would result in the ball advancing to a position between the current position of the ball and the red zone – but not into and/or past the red zone” that is reflected in the present application that satisfies the ‘improvements’ consideration (see Remarks, pg. 12-13). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated by the Applicant’s Specification, the recited components and the corresponding use of “one or more lookup tables” are utilizes to ensure a certain level of RTP and regulatory requirements for randomness and RTP which are a part of managing a wagering game (see Specification, 0154-0155). Moreover, a review of the cited portions of the Specification, do not provide sufficient details and/or sufficient technical details as to how the inventor achieved the claimed functional result, lacks details as to what technical challenges arose when selecting a number of yards for a ball in the game and/or sufficient details as to the particular purported technical solution of different lookup tables. In contrast, the claims are similar to Electric Power, in which the claim recites a grouping of abstract processes by implementing steps that fail to distinguish mental steps that may be performed the aid of a computer as a tool or through pen and paper to implement the abstract idea steps. For instance, the claims recite a series of steps for managing a game associated with a “red zone” bonus which the additional elements recite steps that merely arrange transactional information of the game to indicate the progress of the game to the user and/or a common place business method (e.g., managing a wagering game and “red zone” bonus) being applied on a general purpose computer which the courts have indicated is insufficient to show an improvement to computer functionality or improvements to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)I-II). For at least these reasons, the claimed “lookup tables” are not found to be directed to a technical solution to a technical problem that integrate the claim into a practical application but to rules and/or instructions associated with moving a ball during the course of a “red zone” bonus game which is a certain method of organizing human activity. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument under Step 2A are not persuasive and the rejection has been maintained below.
With respect to Step 2B, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims satisfy Step 2B because they amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons provided above. Additionally, the use of “one or more lookup tables” in order to select game elements and maintain an RTP is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts. For instance, Brown (US 2003/0100356) discloses that selection of game aspects may be designed using weighted probabilities, an Expected Value (EV) and modify the payout percentage by changing lookup tables with different frequencies, and pay values as is well known in the art (see Brown, 0147). For at least these reasons, the use of one or more lookup tables recites the use of a well-known and conventional use of one or more lookup tables to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts. Therefore the additional elements of the claims are not found to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B. For at least these reasons, the rejection of claims 1-20 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;
control advancement across the advanceable path as not exceeding a first threshold of advancement based on the collection of the collectibles over a plurality of plays of the electronic game at least in part by: - certain method of organizing human activity;
for a first play of the electronic game, selecting a first lookup table from a plurality of first lookup tables based upon a first current position on the advanceable path, the first lookup table comprising first amounts of advancement between the first current position and the first threshold of advancement that prevent advancement across the first threshold of enhancement; - certain method of organizing human activity;
updating the first current position to a second current position based upon random selection of a first amount of advancement from the first lookup table;
for a second play of the electronic game, selecting, a second lookup table from the plurality of first lookup tables based upon the second current position on the advanceable path, the second lookup table comprising second amounts of advancement between the second current position and the first threshold of advancement that prevent advancement across the first threshold of advancement; and - certain method of organizing human activity;
updating the second current position to a third current position based upon random selection of a second amount of advancement from the second lookup table;
determine to cause a pick feature to be triggered, wherein the pick feature is associated with the first threshold of advancement being satisfied;- -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: - certain method of organizing human activity;
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 advancement amount 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 social activity such as: managing a “red-zone” pick game including instructions and/or rules associated with an advancement along an advancement path of the game. Moreover, certain limitations are found to recite a mental process because they recite performing 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;” “updating the first current position to a second current position based upon random selection of a first amount of advancement from the first lookup table;” “updating the second current position to a third current position based upon random selection of a second amount of advancement from the second lookup table;” “cause display of the first threshold of advancement across the achievable path being achieved;” and “cause the advancement amount to be displayed;” recite limitations that are found to amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception, insignificant extra solution activity to display the transactional information of the “red zone” pick 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
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