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 .
Status of the Application
This Office-Action acknowledges the Amendment filed on 12/2/2025 and is a response to said Amendment.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (What is the statutory category?):
Claims 1-20 are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (ie: process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A; Prong I (Does the claim recite an abstract idea?):
Claim 1 recites:A system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
maintain a plurality of awards, and
responsive to an occurrence of a non-scripted award opportunity triggering event, for a non-scripted award opportunity:
determine a quantity of selections, the determination being based on a probability of winning a designated award of the maintained plurality of awards,
cause a display, by a display device, of the determined quantity of selections, wherein each award of the maintained plurality of awards is associated with at least one of the determined quantity of selections, and a designated symbol is associated with a selection of the determined quantity of selections,
responsive to a pick, via an input device, of the selection associated with the designated symbol, modify at least one of: at least another selection of the determined quantity of selections and at least the award associated with at least the other selection of the determined quantity of selections, and
responsive to an award triggering event occurring in association with one of the maintained plurality of awards based on at least one pick, via the input device, of at least one of the determined quantity of selections, cause a display, by the display device, of any award associated with each of the determined quantity of selections.
Claim 10 recites:A system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
maintain a plurality of awards, and
responsive to an occurrence of a non-scripted award opportunity triggering event, for a non-scripted award opportunity:
determine a quantity of selections, the determination being based on a probability of winning a designated award of the maintained plurality of awards,
cause a display, by a display device, of the determined quantity of selections, wherein each award of the maintained plurality of awards is associated with at least one of the determined quantity of selections, and a designated symbol is associated with a selection of the determined quantity of selections,
responsive to a pick, via an input device, of the selection associated with the designated symbol, modify a probability of winning at least one of the maintained plurality of awards, and
responsive to an award triggering event occurring in association with one of the maintained plurality of awards based on at least one pick, via the input device, of at least one of the determined quantity of selections,
cause a display, by the display device, of any award associated with each of the determined quantity of selections.
Claim 19 recites:A system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
maintain a plurality of awards, and
responsive to an occurrence of a non-scripted award opportunity triggering event, for a non-scripted award opportunity:
determine, based on a probability of winning an award of the plurality of awards associated with a lowest probability of being won, a quantity of selections,
cause a display, by a display device, of the determined quantity of selections, wherein each award of the plurality of awards is associated with at least one of the determined quantity of selections,
determine, based on at least one pick of at least one of the determined quantity of selections, one of the plurality of awards to win in association with the non-scripted award opportunity, and
cause a display, by the display device, of each of the plurality of awards associated with each of the determined quantity of selections.
[the Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined elements recite certain method of organizing human activity because they describe “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)”]
According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) "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." (Emphasis added)
To further elaborate on the Examiner’s interpretation regarding the claimed invention being directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity, the Examiner believes the invention describe managing interactions between people and machine (ie: a gaming machine) in which rules or instructions for the gaming machine is being implemented (ie: providing an opportunity for a non-scripted award responsive to a non-scripted award opportunity triggering event in which a determined quantity of selections are displayed for selection.)
Step 2A; Prong II (Does the claim recite a practical application?):
The Examiner submits that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or use a computer as tool to perform the abstract idea.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons. The claim elements of claims 1, 10, and 19 above that are not underlined constitute additional limitations.
The Examiner submits that the following additional limitation merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: processor, memory device, display device, and input device.
The Examiner finds that there are concepts regarding the application simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality. For example:
Guinn et al., US 20140094274 discloses that display devices for a gaming machine may comprise a plasma, LED, OLED, LCD, CRT, projection, or transmissive display device and are well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 38); Loose et al., US 20130157751 discloses that a display device for a gaming machine may include, for example, a mechanical-reel display, a video display, a transmissive display assembly, other known display devices, and combinations thereof (paragraph 36); Simongini et al., US 20150072770 discloses that the structure of system memory 104 is well known to those skilled in the relevant field of technology and may include a basic input/output system (BIOS) stored in a read only memory (ROM) and one or more program modules such as operating systems, application programs and program data stored in random access memory (RAM) (paragraph 46); Rodgers et al., US 20060073871, discloses that it is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art that well-known bonus games provide the player with an opportunity to select a bonus award by choosing one or more selections from a group of selections (paragraph 4);
Webb, US 20030060265 discloses that a well-known concept for bonus games is that players can be provided with an opportunity to win a bonus award by choosing one or more symbols from a group of symbols or one or more selections from a group of selections (paragraph 3);
Rehill et al., US 10726678 discloses that it is well known to one of ordinary skill in the graphical user interfaces are arranged to display information regarding a program, software application or other element associated with a computing device (Col 22, lines 44-47); Fujimaki et al., US 20140114890 discloses that it is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art that a computer includes an input device, a central processing unit (CPU), a storage device (for example, a RAM) for storing data, a program memory (for example, a ROM) for storing a program, and an output device (paragraph 50);
Pecenik et al., US 20170092069, discloses that output device for a gaming machine is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art and may comprise any number or combination of a variety of well-known devices, including, without limitation: a display device, a light-emitting diode (LED), an audio speaker, an electric motor, a printer, a coupon or product dispenser, an infra-red port (e.g., for communicating with a second game machine), a Braille computer monitor, a coin and/or bill dispenser, a bell, an LED display (e.g., for displaying a players credit balance) (paragraph 82);
Cockrell, Jr., US 20070057464, discloses that computer systems for implementing games can be suitable general-purpose computers having a processor and memory and are well known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 69);
Geisner, US 20080242421, discloses processors can be general purpose processor for implementing online games and are well known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 24, 34, 52);
Vancura, US 20010038178, discloses the provision of a bonus symbol on a payline is also conventional and it is well known that slot machines can have a bonus condition randomly appear which results in a player having the opportunity to play a bonus game (paragraph 61);
Thomas, US 20160358424, discloses that reel-based games utilize symbols for display on an array for generating outcomes are well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 4);
Loewenstein et al., US 20050236774, discloses that video gambling games such as poker, slot machines and blackjack are all well known, as are techniques to award prizes based on payoff tables (paragraph 3).
The above helps to suggest that the claimed components are no more than generic well-known components.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology; there is no additional element that applies or uses 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; the additional elements merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Step 2B (Are there additional elements that are “something more” than an abstract idea?):
Dependent Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Suslik et al., US 20240105014 (Suslik).
Regarding Claim 19
Suslik discloses a system comprising:
a processor (para 24); and
a memory device (para 24) that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
maintain a plurality of awards (Fig 7; para 99. There is a plurality of award maintained, such as a mini, minor, major, and grand prizes.), and
responsive to an occurrence of a non-scripted award opportunity triggering event, for a non-scripted award opportunity (para 14, 99. A jackpot game may be triggered. The triggered jackpot game is interpreted is interpreted as a non-scripted award opportunity event in which the triggering, such as a jackpot symbol meeting meets a threshold symbol count, is interpreted as the non-scripted opportunity triggering event.):
determine, based on a probability of winning an award of the plurality of awards associated with a lowest probability of being won, a quantity of selections (Fig 7; para 33-34, 61, 99, 101-102. Selections are presented and are based upon probabilities pertinent to return-to-player percentages.),
cause a display, by a display device, of the determined quantity of selections, wherein each award of the plurality of awards is associated with at least one of the determined quantity of selections (Fig 7; para 33-34, 61, 99, 101-102. A quantity of selection is presented to player from which to select in which awards are associated with each of the selection amount among the quantity of selections.),
determine, based on at least one pick of at least one of the determined quantity of selections, one of the plurality of awards to win in association with the non-scripted award opportunity (Fig 7; para 99. After a player picks a first symbol, elem 710, a determination is made to so that an associated award can be displayed that is associated with the non-scripted award opportunity. For example, if a player initially makes a first selection, and that first selection is determined to be associated with a ‘major’ award, as depicted on the bottom row in Fig 7, then it would be revealed to the player.), and
cause a display, by the display device, of each of the plurality of awards associated with each of the determined quantity of selections (Fig 7; para 99. If a player selects a selection that matches up to three symbols, the player will be awarded a jackpot associated with the reward. For example, if the player matches three “minor” after a series of selections, the player will be rewarded with the respective “minor” jackpot.).
Regarding Claim 20.
Suslik discloses the gaming system of Claim 19, wherein the plurality of awards comprise a plurality of progressive awards (para 14, 49, 52, 99. The reward being associated with a jackpot is interpreted as a progressive award.).
Best Applicable Prior Art
Regarding Independent Claim 1, the closest applicable prior art, Suslik et al., US 20240105014, is interpreted as disclosing: A system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: maintain a plurality of awards, and responsive to an occurrence of a non-scripted award opportunity triggering event, for a non-scripted award opportunity: determine a quantity of selections, the determination being based on a probability of winning a designated award of the maintained plurality of awards, cause a display, by a display device, of the determined quantity of selections, wherein each award of the maintained plurality of awards is associated with at least one of the determined quantity of selections, and a designated symbol is associated with a selection of the determined quantity of selections, responsive to an award triggering event occurring in association with one of the maintained plurality of awards based on at least one pick, via the input device, of at least one of the determined quantity of selections, cause a display, by the display device, of any award associated with each of the determined quantity of selections.
However, the prior art is interpreted as failing to disclose the claimed invention within a reasonable context as disclosed in the instant application’s specification, namely: responsive to a pick, via an input device, of the selection associated with the designated symbol, modify at least one of: at least another selection of the determined quantity of selections and at least the award associated with at least the other selection of the determined quantity of selections, and
Regarding Independent Claim 10, the closest applicable prior art, Suslik et al., US 20240105014, is interpreted as disclosing: A system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: maintain a plurality of awards, and responsive to an occurrence of a non-scripted award opportunity triggering event, for a non-scripted award opportunity: determine a quantity of selections, the determination being based on a probability of winning a designated award of the maintained plurality of awards, cause a display, by a display device, of the determined quantity of selections, wherein each award of the maintained plurality of awards is associated with at least one of the determined quantity of selections, and a designated symbol is associated with a selection of the determined quantity of selections, responsive to an award triggering event occurring in association with one of the maintained plurality of awards based on at least one pick, via the input device, of at least one of the determined quantity of selections; cause a display, by the display device, of any award associated with each of the determined quantity of selections.
However, the prior art is interpreted as failing to disclose the claimed invention within a reasonable context as disclosed in the instant application’s specification, namely: responsive to a pick, via an input device, of the selection associated with the designated symbol, modify a probability of winning at least one of the maintained plurality of awards.
Dependent Claims 2-9, 11-18 have no prior art rejection but currently stand rejected under USC § 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in regards to the previously presented 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been considered are not persuasive for at least the following reasons.
Applicant argues that that the elements of the claimed gaming systems integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application by alleging that the claimed invention offer a non-scripted award opportunity by dynamically determining a quantity of selections (that are associated with awards) to make available to be picked based on the probabilities of each of the awards and reveal the awards associated with any unpicked selections to remain in compliance with certain jurisdictional regulations and ensure that every available award may be won in association with the triggering of a selection game by factoring in the probabilities related to winning each of the available awards in determining the quantity of selections to make available (middle of page 8).
The Examiner disagrees because there appears to be no change to the actual gaming system, as claimed, nor any technological improvements. There is simply no specificity detailed that provides any explicit operational changes or technological improvements to the gaming system itself (ie: the game system operates the same regardless of which rules it is following). It appears Applicant is alleging that, since the gameplay is different, the claims set forth a practical application of an abstract idea via a gaming system. It is unclear how the specificity of the game rules, which is deemed the abstract idea, is somehow a technical improvement to the functioning of the game system itself (ie: how is the operational state of the gaming system altered by altering game rules?). The claims merely recite gaming systems that, at best, include a processor, a memory device, and a display device — the gaming system through generic computing elements is simply carrying out or applies the game rules as claimed. As such, there appears to be no alleged operational result changes or technical improvements to the functioning of the gaming system. In this case, the Examiner believes that altering game play based upon jurisdiction in which such game play takes place does not improve upon the functioning of the system implementing such game play but is merely carrying out game rules that is in line with jurisdiction regulations.
Accordingly, the Examiner must respectfully disagree that the claims recite patent-eligible methods for at least the reasons recited in the rejection as presented above.
Applicant presented the argument that “Suslik does not teach or suggest allocating at least one set of matching symbols based on a probability of winning an award associated with a lowest probability of being won. Instead, Suslik only describes using an RTP percentage that is "designed to return a certain percentage of the amount wagered back to the player over the course of many plays or instances of the game" (see paragraph [0005]). Such an RTP percentage is not the same as a probability of winning an award associated with a lowest probability of being won in a non-scripted award opportunity.” (middle of page 9-10)
The Examiner disagrees. When Suslik discloses providing symbols, such as depicted in Fig 7, each matching symbol would have differing probabilities of being one than others. In other words, if all matching symbols were to have the same probabilities, then they might as well be represented as the same symbols. However, in instances where there are differing symbols, there would be differing symbols with the associated symbols, one of them being the lowest. For example, an award for MAJOR would have the lowest probability of being used because it would yield the highest reward, whereas an award for MINI would have a highest probability as it would yield the lowest reward, in order to conform to return-to-player percentages.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JEFFREY WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571) 270-1344. 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.
/JEFFREY K WONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3715