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 .
Response to Arguments
The previous objections to the Drawings and the Specification have been withdrawn in light of the replacement drawings and the amendments to the claims, filed 12/09/25.
The previous objections to the claims have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims, filed 12/09/25. However, new objections to the claims have been presented, as discussed in detail below.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention includes multiple different random determinations of the polarity indicators and of the magnetized symbols, and thus the employment of multiple layers of randomness in these determinations provide a technical operational improvement for gaming systems (Remarks, filed 12/09/25, p. 12). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention is directed to a wagering game (Specification, [0013]). The Specification does not provide any details regarding the random number generator and/or employment of the multiple layers of randomness (See MPEP 2106.05(a), “[T]he disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. […] An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art.”). The Specification, [0081], however, merely recites “It should be appreciated from the above that various embodiments of the present disclosure provide various technical improvements for gaming environments such as but not limited to: (1) improved display interfaces; (2) improved engaging collection displays; (3) improved incentives and enhanced wagering; and (4) improved ways of using magnetized indicators and symbols”, and make no mention of providing a technical operational improvement of gaming systems by employing multiple layers of randomness determinations. Further, it is noted that random number generators are well-known in the art, as demonstrated by the Specification which describes the limitation in a manner which indicates that it is sufficiently well-known that the Specification does not need to describe the particulars of such elements to satisfy enablement (see further U.S. Pub. 2023/0316860 A1, [0004], “Typical games use a random number generator (RNG) to randomly determine the outcome of each game.” & U.S. Pub. 2018/0061186 A1, [0083], “chance-based gaming systems such as slot machines are governed by random numbers and processors, as facilitated by a random number generator (RNG). The fixed and dynamic symbols generated as part of a gaming activity may be produced using one or more RNGs. RNGs as known in the art may be implemented using hardware, software operatable in connection with the processor, or some combination of hardware and software.”).
Applicant further argues that the amended claims cannot be considered human activity or mental processes because the claimed random determinations, via the random number generator, cannot be made in the mind of a human being (Remarks, filed 12/09/25). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitations encompass a fundamental economic practice, i.e., rules for a wagering game (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). The additional amended limitation of a random number generator is recited at a high level of generality for performing its routine function, such that it does not amount to a particular machine or technical improvement thereof, nor represent an improvement in any other technology. The Specification demonstrates that the additional element is recited for its well-understood, routine, and conventional functionality, wherein the Specification refers to the random number generator in a manner that indicates that it is sufficiently well-known that it does not need to describe the particulars of such elements to satisfy enablement (see Specification, [0107], “In certain embodiments, the at least one memory device 1016 is configured to store program code and instructions executable by the at least one processor of the EGM to control the EGM. The at least one memory device 1016 of the EGM also stores other operating data, such as image data, event data, input data, random number generators (RNGs) or pseudo-RNGs, paytable data or information, and/or applicable game rules that relate to the play of one or more games on the EGM.”; [0144], “In certain embodiments, the gaming system randomly determines any game outcome(s) (such as a win outcome) and/or award(s) (such as a quantity of credits to award for the win outcome) for a play of a primary game and/or a play of a secondary game based on probability data. In certain such embodiments, this random determination is provided through utilization of an RNG, such as a true RNG or a pseudo RNG, or any other suitable randomization process.”; [0189], “Trusted memory devices and/or trusted memory sources are included in an EGM to ensure the authenticity of the software that may be stored on less secure memory subsystems, such as mass storage devices. Trusted memory devices and controlling circuitry are typically designed to not enable modification of the code and data stored in the memory device while the memory device is installed in the EGM. The code and data stored in these devices may include authentication algorithms, random number generators, authentication keys, operating system kernels, etc.”).
Moreover, it has been held that printed matter falls outside the scope of 35 U.S.C. 101, and claim limitations directed to the content of information and lacking a requisite functional relationship are not entitled to patentable weight because such information is not patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 (see In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247, wherein the court found that the “specifically-claimed dice” that comprised markings on their faces constituted printed matter).
For these reasons, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been maintained (with respect to claims 8, 12, and 14) or are moot in light of the new ground(s) of rejection presented in detail below based on the amendments to the claims (with respect to claims 1 and 6).
Applicant argues that the amended limitations more positively recite random determinations by the gaming system of the polarity indicators and the magnetized symbols which cannot be treated as printed matter, and thus which must be considered for patentability in view of the prior art and are not anticipated or rendered obvious by Ceniceroz (Remarks, filed 12/09/25, p. 14). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The polarity indicators and magnetized symbols are randomly generated and indicate whether a player has won or lost a wager (e.g., a match of a positive polarity indicator with a negative magnetized symbol results in a winning outcome). The polarity indicators, magnetized symbols, indication of an attraction or repulsion, and corresponding movement of the magnetized symbols further limit a display by specifying graphics thereon and is not functionally or structurally related to the claimed apparatus. That is, any graphics could be used to indicate whether the player has won or lost a wager (e.g., based on a symbol(s) or lack thereof). The recited polarity indicators and magnetized symbols are merely directed to information. Accordingly, the graphics themselves (i.e., polarity indicators, magnetized symbols) do not distinguish the invention from prior art in terms of patentability.
Ceniceroz further discloses the use of a random number generator(s), wherein the gaming system randomly generates a plurality of symbols at the plurality of displayed reels ([0016]; [0064]; [0153]). Ceniceroz may not further explicitly disclose randomly determining, using a random number generator, a quantity of active reels (quantity of polarity indicators). However, Hendricks et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0098221 A1) teaches this limitation (Fig. 5e; [0125], wherein a gaming random number generator generates a random number and determines a set of active reels based on the random number). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further utilize the random number generator of Ceniceroz, which randomly generates a plurality of symbols, to randomly generate a number determining the number of active reels, as taught by Hendricks, where the reels correspond to the plurality of symbols in order to ensure fairness (Hendricks, [0005], wherein the randomness of the random number generator ensures the fairness of games).
Therefore, the rejections of claims 8, 12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been maintained, and the rejections of claims 1 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 102 are moot in light of the new ground(s) of rejection presented in detail below based on the amendments to the claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 9, 16, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“determine and cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of a determined attraction” recited in claim 1, ln. 18-19 should likely read “determine and cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of an
“determine and cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of a determined repulsion” recited in claim 1, ln. 23-24 should likely read “determine and cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of a
“determine quantity” recited in claim 2, ln. 3 and claim 3, ln. 3 should likely read “determine the quantity”;
“with second magnetized symbol” recited in claim 9, ln. 4-5 should likely read “with the second magnetized symbol”;
“cause a display, by the display device, of for each of the quantity of polarity indicators, the polarity indicator associated with one of the reels” recited in claim 16, ln. 11-12 should likely read “cause a display, by the display device, of for each of the polarity indicators associated with one of the reels”;
“the magnetized reeled on that reel” recited in claim 16, ln. 27-28 should likely read “the magnetized symbol on that reel”; and
“a change to one of a plurality of displayed symbols on the reel associated with one of the magnetized symbols after the display of movement of the magnetized symbol” recited in claim 20, ln. 4-6 should likely read “a change to one of a plurality of displayed symbols on the reel.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the Specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites in part “randomly determine, using a random number generator, a quantity of polarity indicators”. However, the Specification does not disclose this limitation. Rather, the Specification only discloses wherein, in various embodiments, the gaming system randomly determines the quantity of polarity indicators for each play of the game, and wherein the gaming system randomly determines any game outcome(s) (such as a win outcome) and/or award(s) (such as a quantity of credits to award for the win outcome) through utilization of a random number generator ([0015]; [0144]).
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasoning.
Claims 2-7 and 17-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claims 1 and 16, respectively.
Claim 2 recites “The gaming system of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine quantity of the polarity indicators also based on a player input.” However, the Specification does not disclose wherein the quantity of the polarity indicators is based on both a random determination by a random number generator and player input (see Specification, [0015], “In various embodiments, the gaming system randomly determines the quantity of polarity indicators for each play of the game. In various embodiments, the gaming system determines the quantity of polarity indicators based directly on a player input for the play of the game. In various embodiments, the gaming system determines the quantity of polarity indicators based directly on a player input in the form of one of a plurality of different wager amounts for the play of the game.”).
Claim 3 is rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim 17 recites “The gaming system of claim 16, wherein a quantity of the polarity indicators associated with each reel is based on a player input associated with one of a plurality of different displayed amounts.” However, the Specification does not disclose wherein a quantity of polarity indicators associated with each reel is based on a player input, as required by the claim, nor where more than one (a quantity of) polarity indicator may be associated with one reel.
Claim 18 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 17.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites in part “determine quantity of the polarity indicators also based on a player input”. It is indefinite as to how the quantity of the polarity of indicators can be determined randomly by a random number generator while also being determined based on player input, as required by claim 2, and the Specification does not offer further guidance.
Claim 3 is rejected for the same reasoning.
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] Claim 1 recites “a gaming system”, which falls within the “machine” statutory category of invention.
[Step 2A – Prong 1] In Step 2A – Prong 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites a judicially recognized exception. According to the Specification, “the systems and methods of the present disclose provide polarity attraction and repulsion for magnetized symbols on symbol displays in a gaming environment”, wherein “[g]aming machines may provide awards […] based on winning symbols or winning symbol combinations” (Specification, [0001-0002]; see also [0026]).
Claim 1 recites: A gaming system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
cause a display, by a display device, of reels;
randomly determine, using a random number generator, a quantity of polarity indicators and for each said polarity indicator randomly determine, using the random number generator, a polarity of the polarity indicator selected from different polarities;
cause a display, by the display device, of the polarity indicators associated with the reels, each polarity indicator indicating the polarity selected from the different polarities for that polarity indicator;
randomly determine, using the random number generator, magnetized symbols to display on the reels;
cause a display, by the display device, of the magnetized symbols on the reels, each magnetized symbol indicating one of the different polarities;
determine and cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of a determined attraction between one of the polarity indicators and one of the magnetized symbols based on the polarities of said magnetized symbol and said polarity indicator, and a movement of said magnetized symbol toward said polarity indicator; and
determine and cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of a determined repulsion between another one of the polarity indicators and another one of the magnetized symbols based on the polarities of said magnetized symbol and said polarity indicator, and a movement of said magnetized symbol away from said polarity indicator.
The underlined portions of claim 1 generally encompass the abstract idea. It is clear that the inventive concept here is a set of rules for a game, which may provide one or more awards to a player. The disclosed invention makes clear that the primary game underlying the game sequence encompasses at least one wager being placed, which triggers the display of polarity indicators associated with displayed reels and magnetized symbols on the reels, in which the outcome of the game may be provided as claimed (the determination of an attraction and/or repulsion between the polarity indicators and the magnetized symbols and causing movement of the magnetized symbols) (see Specification, [0013], “In various embodiments, the game is a primary game such as a primary wagering game. In various embodiments, the game is a secondary game such as a secondary game triggered from a play of a primary wagering game.”; see also [0016], [0041], & [0048]). The abstract idea is a certain method of organizing human activity, wherein the claim limitations encompass a fundamental economic practice, i.e., rules for a wagering game (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Accordingly, the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite an abstract idea.
[Step 2A – Prong 2] The claim does not include additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional limitations of a processor, memory device, and display device merely provide instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, add only extra solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., that of a gaming system/electronic gaming machine). Moreover, the additional element of a random number generator to randomly determine symbols used to determine an outcome (e.g., a match of a polarity indicator to a magnetized symbol indicates a win) is recited at a high level of generality for performing its routine function, such that it does not amount to a particular machine or technical improvement thereof, nor represent an improvement in any other technology. Therefore, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
[Step 2B] As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not further include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are generic computing parts (e.g., processor, memory, display device) and are claimed broadly enough to read on a general-purpose computer. Moreover, the random number generator is recited at a high level of generality for performing its well-understood, routine, conventional functionality such that it does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The Specification demonstrates that the random number generator is recited for its well-understood, routine, and conventional functionality, wherein the Specification refers to the random number generator in a manner that indicates that it is sufficiently well-known that it does not need to describe the particulars of such element to satisfy enablement (see Specification, [0107], “In certain embodiments, the at least one memory device 1016 is configured to store program code and instructions executable by the at least one processor of the EGM to control the EGM. The at least one memory device 1016 of the EGM also stores other operating data, such as image data, event data, input data, random number generators (RNGs) or pseudo-RNGs, paytable data or information, and/or applicable game rules that relate to the play of one or more games on the EGM.”; [0144], “In certain embodiments, the gaming system randomly determines any game outcome(s) (such as a win outcome) and/or award(s) (such as a quantity of credits to award for the win outcome) for a play of a primary game and/or a play of a secondary game based on probability data. In certain such embodiments, this random determination is provided through utilization of an RNG, such as a true RNG or a pseudo RNG, or any other suitable randomization process.”; [0189], “Trusted memory devices and/or trusted memory sources are included in an EGM to ensure the authenticity of the software that may be stored on less secure memory subsystems, such as mass storage devices. Trusted memory devices and controlling circuitry are typically designed to not enable modification of the code and data stored in the memory device while the memory device is installed in the EGM. The code and data stored in these devices may include authentication algorithms, random number generators, authentication keys, operating system kernels, etc.”). Additionally, the use of random number generators in gaming systems such as that claimed are well-known (see, e.g., U.S. Pub. 2023/0316860 A1, [0004], “Typical games use a random number generator (RNG) to randomly determine the outcome of each game.” & U.S. Pub. 2018/0061186 A1, [0083], “chance-based gaming systems such as slot machines are governed by random numbers and processors, as facilitated by a random number generator (RNG). The fixed and dynamic symbols generated as part of a gaming activity may be produced using one or more RNGs. RNGs as known in the art may be implemented using hardware, software operatable in connection with the processor, or some combination of hardware and software.”). Furthermore, it is noted that printed matter is not patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8, 12, and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ceniceroz (U.S. Pub. 2022/0309876 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Ceniceroz discloses a gaming system ([0002], gaming machine) comprising: a processor ([0002], processor circuit); and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to ([0002], a memory device which stores a plurality of instructions to be executed by the processor circuit to cause the processor circuit to perform operations):
cause a display, by a display device, of a plurality of reels comprising a first reel and a second reel (Figs. 2A-2D, #202a-202e; [0002]; [0024]; [0029], wherein the gaming system displays a plurality of reels 202a-202e; see also [0069], “The at least one output device includes at least one display device configured to display any game(s) displayed by the EGM and any suitable information associated with such game(s)).
Ceniceroz further discloses the use of a random number generator, wherein the gaming system randomly generates a plurality of symbols at the plurality of displayed reels ([0016]; [0064]; [0153]). Additionally, Ceniceroz further discloses displaying movement of one or more symbols based on a triggering event and/or the symbol (e.g., the color of the symbol) (Figs. 2A-2D; [0029-0032]; [0035]). However, Ceniceroz may not explicitly disclose the random number generator determining, and the display device displaying, a first and second polarity indicator with a positive and negative polarity, respectively, or a first and second magnetized symbol with positive and negative polarities, respectively, nor an indication of a determined attraction and repulsion between the polarity indicators and the magnetized symbols based on the polarities and corresponding movement of the magnetized symbol towards or away from the corresponding polarity indicator. However, it has been held that when the claimed printed matter is not functionally or structurally related to the substrate, it will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983). (See MPEP 2111.05(I)(B) (i.e., “Where a product merely serves as support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. These situations may arise where the claim as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product.”). Further limiting a display by specifying graphics rendered thereon is not functionally or structurally related to the claimed apparatus, and thus cannot serve as a basis to distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Regarding claim 12, Ceniceroz further discloses wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine and cause a display, by the display device, of a change to one of a plurality of displayed symbols on the first reel after displaying movement of the first symbol (Figs. 2A-2D; [0031-0035]). Ceniceroz may not explicitly further disclose a magnetized symbol on the reel. However, it has been held that when the claimed printed matter is not functionally or structurally related to the substrate, it will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983). (See MPEP 2111.05(I)(B) (i.e., “Where a product merely serves as support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. These situations may arise where the claim as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product.”). Further limiting a display by specifying graphics rendered thereon is not functionally or structurally related to the claimed apparatus, and thus cannot serve as a basis to distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected for like reasoning as claim 12, presented above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ceniceroz in view of Hendricks et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0098221 A1) (hereinafter “Hendricks”).
Regarding claim 1, Ceniceroz discloses a gaming system ([0002], gaming machine) comprising: a processor ([0002], processor circuit); and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to ([0002], a memory device which stores a plurality of instructions to be executed by the processor circuit to cause the processor circuit to perform operations):
cause a display, by a display device, of reels (Figs. 2A-2D, #202a-202e; [0002]; [0024]; [0029], wherein the gaming system displays a plurality of reels 202a-202e; see also [0069], “The at least one output device includes at least one display device configured to display any game(s) displayed by the EGM and any suitable information associated with such game(s)).
Ceniceroz further discloses the use of a random number generator, wherein the gaming system randomly generates a plurality of symbols at the plurality of displayed reels ([0016]; [0064]; [0153]). However, Ceniceroz may not further explicitly disclose randomly determining, using the random number generator, a quantity of active reels (quantity of polarity indicators). Yet, Hendricks teaches this limitation (Fig. 5e; [0125], wherein a gaming random number generator generates a random number and determines a set of active reels based on the random number). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further utilize the random number generator of Ceniceroz, which randomly generates a plurality of symbols, to randomly generate a number determining the number of active reels, as taught by Hendricks, where the reels correspond to the plurality of symbols in order to ensure fairness (Hendricks, [0005], wherein the randomness of the random number generator ensures the fairness of games).
Additionally, Ceniceroz further discloses displaying movement of one or more symbols based on a triggering event and/or the symbol (e.g., the color of the symbol) (Figs. 2A-2D; [0029-0032]; [0035]). However, Ceniceroz may not explicitly disclose causing a display, by the display device, of polarity indicators associated with the reels, each polarity indicator indicating a polarity, magnetized symbols on the reels, each magnetized symbol indicating a polarity, and an indication of a determined attraction and repulsion between the polarity indicators and the magnetized symbols based on the polarities of the magnetized symbol and corresponding polarity indicator of the reel and corresponding movement of the magnetized symbol towards or away from the corresponding polarity indicator. However, it has been held that when the claimed printed matter is not functionally or structurally related to the substrate, it will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983). (See MPEP 2111.05(I)(B) (i.e., “Where a product merely serves as support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. These situations may arise where the claim as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product.”). Further limiting a display by specifying graphics rendered thereon is not functionally or structurally related to the claimed apparatus, and thus cannot serve as a basis to distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Regarding claim 6, Ceniceroz further discloses wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine and cause a display, by the display device, of a change to one of a plurality of displayed symbols on the reels after displaying movement of the symbol (Figs. 2A-2D; [0031-0035]). Ceniceroz may not explicitly further disclose magnetized symbols on the reels. However, it has been held that when the claimed printed matter is not functionally or structurally related to the substrate, it will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983). (See MPEP 2111.05(I)(B) (i.e., “Where a product merely serves as support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. These situations may arise where the claim as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product.”). Further limiting a display by specifying graphics rendered thereon is not functionally or structurally related to the claimed apparatus, and thus cannot serve as a basis to distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Claims 2, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ceniceroz in view of Hendricks and in further view of Delekta (U.S. Pub. 2022/0351578 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Ceniceroz further discloses determining display features based on an amount of a wager placed (player input) ([0038]). Ceniceroz may not further explicitly disclose determining quantity of symbols also based on a player input, however, Delekta, teaches this limitation ([75] determining which symbol display positions of the reel area are active for the columns depending on the bet amount). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine active symbol display positions based on a wager amount, as taught by Delekta, in addition to the location of the symbol display positions to increase or decrease a probability of winning an award based on the wager amount.
Ceniceroz in view of Hendricks and Delekta may not explicitly teach polarity indicators. However, it has been held that when the claimed printed matter is not functionally or structurally related to the substrate, it will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983). (See MPEP 2111.05(I)(B) (i.e., “Where a product merely serves as support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. These situations may arise where the claim as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product.”). Further limiting a display by specifying graphics rendered thereon is not functionally or structurally related to the claimed apparatus, and thus cannot serve as a basis to distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Regarding claim 16, Ceniceroz discloses a gaming system ([0002], gaming machine) comprising: a processor ([0002], processor circuit); and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to ([0002], a memory device which stores a plurality of instructions to be executed by the processor circuit to cause the processor circuit to perform operations):
cause a display, by a display device, of a plurality of reels (Figs. 2A-2D, #202a-202e; [0002]; [0024]; [0029], wherein the gaming system displays a plurality of reels 202a-202e; see also [0069], “The at least one output device includes at least one display device configured to display any game(s) displayed by the EGM and any suitable information associated with such game(s))).
Ceniceroz further discloses the use of a random number generator, wherein the gaming system randomly generates a plurality of symbols at the plurality of displayed reels ([0016]; [0064]; [0153]). However, Ceniceroz may not further explicitly disclose randomly determining, using the random number generator, a quantity of active reels (quantity of polarity indicators). Yet, Hendricks teaches this limitation (Fig. 5e; [0125], wherein a gaming random number generator generates a random number and determines a set of active reels based on the random number). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further utilize the random number generator of Ceniceroz, which randomly generates a plurality of symbols, to randomly generate a number determining the number of active reels, as taught by Hendricks, where the reels correspond to the plurality of symbols in order to ensure fairness (Hendricks, [0005], wherein the randomness of the random number generator ensures the fairness of games).
While Ceniceroz may not explicitly disclose displaying symbols at one but not all of the plurality of reels, Delekta teaches this limitation ([75] wherein some but not all of the symbol display positions of the reel area may be active for the columns depending on the bet amount). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine and display active symbol display positions (e.g., based on a wager amount), as taught by Delekta, to increase or decrease a probability of winning an award based on the wager amount.
Additionally, Ceniceroz further discloses displaying movement of one or more symbols based on a triggering event and/or the symbol (e.g., the color of the symbol) (Figs. 2A-2D; [0029-0032]; [0035]). However, Ceniceroz in view of Hendricks and Delekta may not explicitly teach causing a display, by the display device, of polarity indicators associated with the reels, each polarity indicator indicating one of a positive polarity and a negative polarity, magnetized symbols on the plurality of reels, each magnetized symbol indicating one of the positive polarity and the negative polarity, and an indication of a determined attraction and repulsion between the polarity indicators and the magnetized symbols and corresponding movement of the magnetized symbol towards or away from the corresponding polarity indicator. However, it has been held that when the claimed printed matter is not functionally or structurally related to the substrate, it will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983). (See MPEP 2111.05(I)(B) (i.e., “Where a product merely serves as support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. These situations may arise where the claim as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product.”). Further limiting a display by specifying graphics rendered thereon is not functionally or structurally related to the claimed apparatus, and thus cannot serve as a basis to distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Regarding claim 20, Ceniceroz further discloses wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine and cause a display, by the display device, of a change to one of a plurality of displayed symbols on the reel after displaying movement of the symbol (Figs. 2A-2D; [0031-0035]). Ceniceroz may not explicitly further disclose magnetized symbols on the reel. However, it has been held that when the claimed printed matter is not functionally or structurally related to the substrate, it will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983). (See MPEP 2111.05(I)(B) (i.e., “Where a product merely serves as support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. These situations may arise where the claim as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product.”). Further limiting a display by specifying graphics rendered thereon is not functionally or structurally related to the claimed apparatus, and thus cannot serve as a basis to distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ceniceroz in view of Hendricks, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Delekta and Jackson (U.S. Pub. 2005/0049031 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Ceniceroz further discloses determining display features based on an amount of a wager placed (player input) ([0038]). Ceniceroz may not further explicitly disclose determining quantity of symbols based also on a player input, however, Delekta, teaches this limitation ([75] determining which symbol display positions of the reel area are active for the columns depending on the bet amount). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine active symbol display positions based on a wager amount, as taught by Delekta, in addition to the location of the symbol display positions to increase or decrease a probability of winning an award based on the wager amount.
Moreover, Ceniceroz may not explicitly teach wherein the player input is associated with one of a plurality of different displayed amounts. However, Jackson teaches wherein the EGM display includes a number of pay lines and a number of credits bet per pay line for the player to input (Fig. 2; [0037]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate on the display the wager amount, as taught by Jackson, for the player to easily input their desired bet amount on the machine.
Ceniceroz in view of Hendricks, Delekta, and Jackson may not explicitly teach polarity indicators. However, it has been held that when the claimed printed matter is not functionally or structurally related to the substrate, it will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983). (See MPEP 2111.05(I)(B) (i.e., “Where a product merely serves as support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. These situations may arise where the claim as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product.”). Further limiting a display by specifying graphics rendered thereon is not functionally or structurally related to the claimed apparatus, and thus cannot serve as a basis to distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ceniceroz in view Hendricks, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Nicely (U.S. Pub. 2015/0080095 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Ceniceroz further discloses wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine and cause a display, by the display device ([0002-0004]; [0024]; [0069]). Ceniceroz may not further explicitly disclose, however Nicely teaches an amount associated with a symbol ([0065], wherein one or more symbols are associated with an award, such as a value). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to associate an amount with a symbol, as taught by Nicely, in the invention of Ceniceroz in order to provide varying award amounts per reel, as opposed to static amounts/awards indicated by the positions of the event zones (Ceniceroz, [0048]; [0074], wherein upon any of the reels reaching an event zone associated with that reel, the award of the position of the event zone is provided; see also Ceniceroz, [0109], wherein one or more awards may be provided when specified types of the indicia or symbols on the reels occur).
Ceniceroz in view of Hendricks and Nicely may not further teach magnetized symbols. However, it has been held that when the claimed printed matter is not functionally or structurally related to the substrate, it will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983). (See MPEP 2111.05(I)(B) (i.e., “Where a product merely serves as support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. These situations may arise where the claim as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product.”). Further limiting a display by specifying graphics rendered thereon is not functionally or structurally related to the claimed apparatus, and thus cannot serve as a basis to distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Regarding claim 5, Ceniceroz further discloses wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine and cause a display, by the display device ([0002-0004]; [0024]; [0069]). Ceniceroz may not further explicitly disclose, however, Nicely teaches changing an amount associated with a symbol in association with movement of that symbol ([0067], wherein the awards associated with symbols of one or more multiple symbol display position elements are modified, such as increased, with one or more movements of that multiple display position element). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to associate an amount with a symbol and adjust the amount based on movement of that symbol, as taught by Nicely, in the invention of Ceniceroz in order to provide varying award amounts per reel, as opposed to static amounts/awards indicated by the positions of the event zones (Ceniceroz, [0048]; [0074], wherein upon any of the reels reaching an event zone associated with that reel, the award of the position of the event zone is provided; see also Ceniceroz, [0109], wherein one or more awards may be provided when specified types of the indicia or symbols on the reels occur).
Ceniceroz in view of Hendricks and Nicely may not further teach magnetized symbols. However, it has been held that when the claimed printed matter is not functionally or structurally related to the substrate, it will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983). (See MPEP 2111.05(I)(B) (i.e., “Where a product merely serves as support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. These situations may arise where the claim as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product.”). Further limiting a display by specifying graphics rendered thereon is not functionally or structurally related to the claimed apparatus, and thus cannot serve as a basis to distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ceniceroz in view of Hendricks, as applied to claim 6, and in further view of Nakamura (U.S. Pub. 2017/0032625 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Ceniceroz may not further explicitly disclose wherein the change to the symbol is a change of the symbol to a wild symbol. However, Nakamura teaches that limitation ([0063], wherein a symbol may be changed to a wild symbol in response to a game condition). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the symbol to a wild symbol, as taught by Nakamura, based on a game condition (e.g., movement of a symbol) as a reward to a player, for example (Nakamura, [0063], wherein changing the symbols to wild symbols increases a probability of winning (an award/reward); see also Ceniceroz, [0109], wherein the player may be provided an award after a spin of the reels when specified types of the indicia or symbols on the reels occur; Ceniceroz, [0012], also noting that awards can be based on symbol display positions (e.g., after a movement of the symbol to that position)).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ceniceroz in view of Nicely (U.S. Pub. 2015/0080095 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Ceniceroz further discloses wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine and cause a display, by the display device ([0002-0004]; [0024]; [0069]). Ceniceroz may not further explicitly disclose, however Nicely teaches an amount associated with a symbol ([0065], wherein one or more symbols are associated with an award, such as a value). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to associate an amount with each symbol, as taught by Nicely, in the invention of Ceniceroz in order to provide varying award amounts per reel, as opposed to static amounts/awards indicated by the positions of the event zones (Ceniceroz, [0048]; [0074], wherein upon any of the reels reaching an event zone associated with that reel, the award of the position of the event zone is provided; see also Ceniceroz, [0109], wherein one or more awards may be provided when specified types of the indicia or symbols on the reels occur).
Ceniceroz in view of Nicely may not further teach magnetized symbols. However, it has been held that when the claimed printed matter is not functionally or structurally related to the substrate, it will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983). (See MPEP 2111.05(I)(B) (i.e., “Where a product merely serves as support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. These situations may arise where the claim as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product.”). Further limiting a display by specifying graphics rendered thereon is not functionally or structurally related to the claimed apparatus, and thus cannot serve as a basis to distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Regarding claim 10, Ceniceroz further discloses wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine and cause a display, by the display device ([0002-0004]; [0024]; [0069]). Ceniceroz may not further explicitly disclose, however, Nicely teaches changing an amount associated with a symbol in association with movement of that symbol ([0067], wherein the awards associated with symbols of one or more multiple symbol display position elements are modified, such as increased, with one or more movements of that multiple display position element). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to associate an amount with a symbol and adjust the amount based on movement of that symbol, as taught by Nicely, in the invention of Ceniceroz in order to provide varying award amounts per reel, as opposed to static amounts/awards indicated by the positions of the event zones (Ceniceroz, [0048]; [0074], wherein upon any of the reels reaching an event zone associated with that reel, the award of the position of the event zone is provided; see also Ceniceroz, [0109], wherein one or more awards may be provided when specified types of the indicia or symbols on the reels occur).
Ceniceroz in view of Nicely may not further teach magnetized symbols. However, it has been held that when the claimed printed matter is not functionally or structurally related to the substrate, it will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983). (See MPEP 2111.05(I)(B) (i.e., “Where a product merely serves as support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. These situations may arise where the claim as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product.”). Further limiting a display by specifying graphics rendered thereon is not functionally or structurally related to the claimed apparatus, and thus cannot serve as a basis to distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected for like reasoning as claim 10, presented above.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ceniceroz in view of Nakamura (U.S. Pub. 2017/0032625 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Ceniceroz may not further explicitly disclose wherein the change to the symbol is a change of the symbol to a wild symbol. However, Nakamura teaches that limitation ([0063], wherein a symbol may be changed to a wild symbol in response to a game condition). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the symbol to a wild symbol, as taught by Nakamura, based on a game condition (e.g., movement of a symbol) as a reward to a player, for example (Nakamura, [0063], wherein changing the symbols to wild symbols increases a probability of winning (an award/reward); see also Ceniceroz, [0109], wherein the player may be provided an award after a spin of the reels when specified types of the indicia or symbols on the reels occur; Ceniceroz, [0012], also noting that awards can be based on symbol display positions (e.g., after a movement of the symbol to that position)).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected for like reasoning as claim 13, presented above.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ceniceroz in view of Hendricks and Delekta, as applied to claim 16, and in further view of Jackson.
Regarding claim 17, Ceniceroz further discloses determining display features based on an amount of a wager placed (player input) ([0038]). Ceniceroz may not further explicitly disclose determining a quantity of symbols based on a player input, however, Delekta, teaches this limitation ([75] determining which symbol display positions of the reel area are active for the columns depending on the bet amount). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine active symbol display positions based on a wager amount, as taught by Delekta, in addition to the location of the symbol display positions to increase or decrease a probability of winning an award based on the wager amount.
Moreover, Ceniceroz may not explicitly teach wherein the player input is associated with one of a plurality of different displayed amounts. However, Jackson teaches wherein the EGM display includes a number of pay lines and a number of credits bet per pay line for the player to input (Fig. 2; [0037]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate on the display the wager amount, as taught by Jackson, for the player to easily input their desired bet amount on the machine.
Ceniceroz in view of Hendricks, Delekta, and Jackson may not explicitly teach polarity indicators. However, it has been held that when the claimed printed matter is not functionally or structurally related to the substrate, it will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983). (See MPEP 2111.05(I)(B) (i.e., “Where a product merely serves as support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. These situations may arise where the claim as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product.”). Further limiting a display by specifying graphics rendered thereon is not functionally or structurally related to the claimed apparatus, and thus cannot serve as a basis to distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ceniceroz in view of Hendricks and Delekta, as applied to claim 16, and in further view of Nicely.
Regarding claim 18, Ceniceroz further discloses wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine and cause a display, by the display device ([0002-0004]; [0024]; [0069]). Ceniceroz may not further explicitly disclose, however Nicely teaches an amount associated with a symbol ([0065], wherein one or more symbols are associated with an award, such as a value). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to associate an amount with a symbol, as taught by Nicely, in the invention of Ceniceroz in order to provide varying award amounts per reel, as opposed to static amounts/awards indicated by the positions of the event zones (Ceniceroz, [0048]; [0074], wherein upon any of the reels reaching an event zone associated with that reel, the award of the position of the event zone is provided; see also Ceniceroz, [0109], wherein one or more awards may be provided when specified types of the indicia or symbols on the reels occur).
Ceniceroz in view of Hendricks, Delekta, and Nicely may not further teach magnetized symbols. However, it has been held that when the claimed printed matter is not functionally or structurally related to the substrate, it will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983). (See MPEP 2111.05(I)(B) (i.e., “Where a product merely serves as support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. These situations may arise where the claim as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product.”). Further limiting a display by specifying graphics rendered thereon is not functionally or structurally related to the claimed apparatus, and thus cannot serve as a basis to distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Regarding claim 19, Ceniceroz further discloses wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, by the display device ([0002-0004]; [0024]; [0069]). Ceniceroz may not further explicitly disclose, however, Nicely teaches changing an amount associated with a symbol in association with the movement of that symbol ([0067], wherein the awards associated with symbols of one or more multiple symbol display position elements are modified, such as increased, with one or more movements of that multiple display position element). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to associate an amount with a symbol and adjust the amount based on movement of that symbol, as taught by Nicely, in the invention of Ceniceroz in order to provide varying award amounts per reel, as opposed to static amounts/awards indicated by the positions of the event zones (Ceniceroz, [0048]; [0074], wherein upon any of the reels reaching an event zone associated with that reel, the award of the position of the event zone is provided; see also Ceniceroz, [0109], wherein one or more awards may be provided when specified types of the indicia or symbols on the reels occur).
Ceniceroz in view of Hendricks, Delekta, and Nicely may not further teach magnetized symbols. However, it has been held that when the claimed printed matter is not functionally or structurally related to the substrate, it will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983). (See MPEP 2111.05(I)(B) (i.e., “Where a product merely serves as support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. These situations may arise where the claim as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product.”). Further limiting a display by specifying graphics rendered thereon is not functionally or structurally related to the claimed apparatus, and thus cannot serve as a basis to distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
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 ALYSSA N BRANDLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
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.
/ALYSSA N BRANDLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715