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 1-8 and 10-21 are pending. Claims 1 and 14 have been amended and claims 9 has been cancelled. Claim 21 has been newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative presents arguments that the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 are i) not directed to an abstract idea but improvements to the functioning of computer functionality and electronic gaming machine operation and wagering interfaces under Step 2A-prong 1 (see Remarks, pg. 9-11); ii) integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2 (see Remarks, pg. 11-12); and iii) recite significantly more under Step 2B (see Remarks, pg. 12). The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons provided below.
With respect to the arguments under Step 2A-prong 1, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea but to machine-function improvements and electronic gaming machine operation and wagering interfaces (see Remarks, pg. 8-11 – Section I.A). Specifically, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claim limitations are directed to operation of an electronic roulette gaming system that 1) computes a bet-specific, ratio-based prorated eligible progressive jackpot award amount and 2) controls specific human-machine interface by (a) animating a betting-layout highlight effect with a meter to present the eligible progressive award amount and animates a mask highlight effect that de-emphasizes non-eligible wheel pockets outside the eligible range that reduces luminance to reduce display power consumption relative to full-brightness wheel and how the machine communicates regulated, bet-specific eligibility information during multi-round bonus play (see Remarks, pg. 9-11). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are found to recite a series of steps and/or instructions directed to managing a roulette progressive jackpot award which amounts to rules and/or instructions for managing a roulette game. The amended limitations have been found to recite result-oriented functional limitations that amount to rules for managing the abstract idea by implementing mathematical relationships (e.g., computing a ratio of an actual bet level of the bet to a maximum bet level required to be eligible to win a full amount and multiplying the full award amount by the ratio to obtain the eligible progressive jackpot amount) which is analogous to mitigating risk, hedging by a mathematical relationship which are directed to the abstract idea itself. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the claim limitations are found to be directed to the abstract idea and not machine-function improvements and electronic gaming machine operation and/or an improvement to wagering interfaces under Step 2A-prong 1.
With respect to the Step 2A-prong 2, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the amended claims integrate the claim into a practical application. Specifically, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims tie a particular user-interface mechanism that presents, at the betting layout, the eligible progressive award amount, during the bonus game, to separate eligible and non-eligible outcomes by applying a mask effect that de-emphasizes non-eligible wheel pockets that improves how the machine communicates “regulated-bet-specific eligibility information and reduces operator/player error in interpreting eligibility during multi-round bonus play” (see Remarks, pg. 10-12). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite result-oriented functions that claim only the idea of a solution or outcome that fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished and invokes computers or other machinery (e.g., an interaction and display in an electronic roulette gaming system) which amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Moreover, the courts have indicated that merely arranging transaction information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly is not indicative of an improvement in computer-functionality. Similarly, arranging transactional information in a user interface that presents, at the betting layout, the eligible progressive award amount, during the bonus game, to separate eligible and non-eligible outcomes by applying a mask effect that de-emphasizes non-eligible wheel pockets to improve how the machine communicates “regulated-bet-specific eligibility information and reduces operator/player error in interpreting eligibility” during the multi-round bonus play is not indicated of an improvement to the computer. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the analysis under Step 2A-prong 2 has been maintained below.
With respect to Step 2B, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims recite additional elements that require “a specific ratio-based proration computation tied to maximum-bet eligibility” and “a specific display mechanism (highlight effect with meter) that presents the eligible award amount, along with masking of non-eligible pockets during the bonus round” which is a particular arrangement of operations that changes how the electronic roulette system computes and presents progressive jackpot eligibility and round-based outcomes (see Remarks, pg. 12). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, the limitations directed to “a specific ratio-based proration computation tied to maximum-bet eligibility” are directed the abstract idea itself (e.g., a certain method of organizing human activity and/or mathematical relationship) which does not amount to additional elements that result in significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the limitations directed to a display mechanism (highlight effect with meter) and masking of non-eligible pockets during the bonus round were found to recite result-oriented functionality that amounted to arranging transactional information of the bonus game that was not indicative of a specific user interface and/or how the user-interface was improved that could be construed as amounting to significantly more. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument are not persuasive and the claims are not found to recite limitations that amount to significantly more under Step 2B.
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 1-8 and 9-21 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. A method comprising:
triggering, by an electronic processor associated with an electronic roulette game system, a progressive jackpot bonus game in response to a determination that a player terminal of the electronic roulette game system placed a bet on a randomly selected wheel-segment value from a roulette wheel of a roulette game, said bonus game comprising a plurality of rounds, wherein, for each round of the plurality of rounds, said method comprising; - certain method of organizing human activity;
determining, by the processor, an eligible progressive jackpot award amount for the respective one of the plurality of progressive jackpot levels by computing a ratio of an actual bet level of the bet to a maximum bet level required to be eligible to win a full award amount for the respective one of the plurality of progressive jackpot levels, and multiplying the full award amount by the ratio to obtain the eligible progressive jackpot award amount; - certain method of organizing human activity and/or mathematical relationships;
animating, by the processor via an electronic display associated with the player terminal, a betting-layout highlight effect that highlights a betting layout value corresponding to the bet and includes a meter that presents the eligible progressive jackpot award amount;
animating, by the processor via an electronic display associated with the player terminal, a first highlight effect that indicates a range of eligible pockets on the roulette wheel associated with the randomly selected wheel-segment value, wherein a size of the range of eligible pockets for each round corresponds to a respective one of a plurality of progressive jackpot levels associated with each round;
animating, by the processor via the electronic display concurrently with the first highlight effect, a mask highlight effect that de-emphasizes one or more non-eligible pockets on the roulette wheel outside the range of eligible pockets;
animating, by the processor after animating the first highlight effect, a spin of the roulette wheel; and
animating, by the processor in response to determining a result of the spin, a second highlight effect to indicate whether the result of the spin lands within the range of eligible pockets. – 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 a roulette game and a progressive jackpot bonus game. Moreover, computing a ratio of an actual bet level of the bet to a maximum bet level and multiplying the full award amount by the ratio to obtain the eligible progressive jackpot ward amounts to the abstract idea of a mathematical relationship and/or formula. 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: “by an electronic processor associated with an electronic roulette game system,” “determining, by the processor, an eligible progressive jackpot award amount”, “animating, by the processor via an electronic display associated with the player terminal, a betting-layout highlight effect that highlights a betting layout value corresponding to the bet and includes a meter that presents the eligible progressive jackpot award amount;” “animating, by the processor via an electronic display associated with the player terminal, a first highlight effect that indicates a range of eligible pockets on the roulette wheel associated with the randomly selected wheel-segment value, wherein a size of the range of eligible pockets for each round corresponds to a respective one of a plurality of progressive jackpot levels associated with each round;” “animating, by the processor via the electronic display concurrently with the first highlight effect, a mask highlight effect that de-emphasizes one or more non-eligible pockets on the roulette wheel outside the range of eligible pockets;” and “animating, by the processor after animating the first highlight effect, a spin of the roulette wheel; and animating, by the processor in response to” recite rules and/or 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)). The remaining limitations such as: “an electronic processor” of “an electronic roulette game system”, “a player terminal of the electronic game system” and “via an electronic display associated with the player terminal” recite highly-generalized computer components to perform their ordinary functions which are invoked as a tool 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 processor” of “an electronic roulette game system”, “a player terminal of the electronic game system” and “via an electronic display associated with the player terminal” when viewed either individually and/or as a collection of elements recite highly-generalized computer components to be invoked 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 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 a display to present steps of a game (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0008, 0037-0040). Moreover, Kido (US 2008/0242393 A1) discloses that a conventional roulette gaming machine utilizing a server and client configuration is known to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts (see Kido, Fig. 1-2, 5, 7, 0130-0134). 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 Claim 14, the claim recite substantially the same subject matter as independent Claim 1. The claims are different in that independent Claim 14 further recites “a random number generator” of an electronic roulette gaming system. As noted in Vancura, a conventional gaming machine utilizes a random number generator to drive outcome selections is known to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0037-0041). This difference do not substantially modify the analysis as addressed above and is incorporated herein. For substantially the same reasons, independent Claim 14 is found to be directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding dependent Claims 2-8, 10-13 and 15-21, 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 1-8, 10-21 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
Prosecution Insights