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 .
Procedural Summary
This is responsive to the claims filed 03/19/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 to 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Each of Claims 1 to 20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
The examiner follows the two step-analysis, as described in MPEP 2106 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html). The following diagram is an overview of the steps involved.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1
Step 1 of the two step-analysis considers whether the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention such as a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The instant invention claims a system and a method in Claims 1-20. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad statutory categories of invention. However, claims that fall within one of the four statutory categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas.
Step 2A
Step 2A has been further divided into two prongs as shown in the following diagram.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Step 2A, Prong 1
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon. The term “abstract idea” is not interpreted as a layperson might. Instead, the term “abstract idea” is interpreted as described in legal opinions by courts.
According to MPEP 2106.04(a):
the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Here, each of Claims 1 to 20 recite steps, instructions or rules for providing a game namely, following rules, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Further, each of Claims 1 to 20 recite steps or instructions involving observations, judgements or evaluations, which are mental processes under the 2019 PEG. Specifically, independent Claim 1 (and similarly recited Claims 9 and 19) recites
“… 1. (Currently Amended) A system comprising:
a processor circuit; and
a memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to:
determine that a first bonus game trigger condition for a base wagering game at a gaming device has been met;
determine a first multiplier value associated with the bonus game;
cause a graphical user interface (GUI) of the gaming device to display a first option to play the bonus game at the first multiplier value and a second option to increase the first multiplier value for a future bonus game;
based on a selection of the first option by a player at the gaming device:
initiate the bonus game;
generate a bonus game result;
determine a first bonus game award based on the bonus game result;
multiply the first bonus game award based on the first multiplier to generate a first total bonus game award; and
award the first total bonus game award to the player; and
based on a selection of the second option by the player:
increase the first multiplier value to a second multiplier value higher than the first multiplier value;
cause the GUI to display the second multiplier value in response to the selection of the second option by the player;
remove the first bonus game trigger condition; and
resume play of the base wagering game.”
Claim 19 recites “19. (Currently Amended) A method comprising:
periodically determining, by a processor circuit during play of a base wagering game at a gaming device, whether a bonus game trigger condition for the base wagering game has been met;
for each instance of the bonus game trigger condition being met:
determining, by the processor circuit, a current active multiplier value for the bonus game;
causing a graphical user interface (GUI) of the gaming device to display a first option to play the bonus game at the current active multiplier value and a second option to increase the active multiplier value for a subsequent bonus game;
based on a selection of the first option by a player at the gaming device:
initiating, by the processor circuit, the bonus game;
generating, by the processor circuit, a bonus game result;
determining, by the processor circuit, a first bonus game award based on the bonus game result;
multiplying, by the processor circuit, the first bonus game award based on the first multiplier to generate a first total bonus game award;
awarding, by the processor circuit, the first total bonus game award to the player;
reducing, by the processor circuit, the active multiplier value to a minimum multiplier value; and
resuming, by the processor circuit, play of the base wagering game; and
based on a selection of the second option by the player:
adding, by the processor circuit, a multiplier increase value to the current active multiplier value to generate an increased multiplier value;
setting, by the processor circuit, the increased multiplier value as the active multiplier value;
displaying, by the GUI, the increased multiplier value after the selection of the second option by the player;
removing, by the processor circuit, the bonus game trigger condition; and
resuming, by the processor circuit, play of the base wagering game.”
As indicated above, the underlined portions of representative Independent Claim 1, and similarly recited Independent Claims 9 and 19, generally encompass the a set of rules for conducting a wagering game and for managing the player's wager and resulting awards. The steps of the claim falls within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)) on two bases: (i) managing interactions between people and following rules or instructions — the limitations are the rules a player and the house follow when conducting and resolving the game; and (ii) a fundamental economic practice — a wagering game is, in substance, a method of exchanging and resolving financial obligations based on game outcomes. The Federal Circuit has squarely held that a "method of conducting a wagering game" is an abstract idea, reasoning that such a game is "effectively, a method of exchanging and resolving financial obligations based on probabilities." In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("rules for playing a game" are an abstract idea). The "determine," "generate," and "multiply" steps additionally describe observation, and evaluation, of the kind that can be performed mentally or with pen and paper, implicating the "mental processes" grouping as well. Further, the dependent Claims 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 generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed. Accordingly, each of Claims 1 to 20 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the additional elements in the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Here, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. According to 2019 PEG, a consideration indicative of integration into a practical application includes improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular application (a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components for filtering Internet content, as discussed in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Conversely, considerations not indicative of integration include adding words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)); adding insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claims 1, 9, and 19 further recite a processor circuit, graphical user interface (GUI), gaming device, and a memory, yet these are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than in name only) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
The steps of the game are deemed to be data gathering and data presentation for the use of the judicial exception and similarly are recited at a high level of generality. Thus, these limitations are a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g), See also selecting a particular source and type of data to be manipulated where “Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Even when the limitations are viewed in combination, the additional elements in this claim do no more than automate the organizing activities needed to be performed, using the one of more computer components as tools. While this type of automation is an improvement in a general sense as opposed to performance manually, there is no change to the computers and other technology that are recited in the claim as automating the abstract ideas, and thus this claim cannot improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Latric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality). Furthermore, the additional elements do not serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Accordingly, Claims 1, 9, 19, and their dependent claims as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and these claims are directed to the judicial exception. Thus, Claims 1-20 lack the eligibility requirements of Step 2 Prong II.
Step 2B
Finally, under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements:
• add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present (MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present (MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo, April 20, 2018). Thus, the additional elements evaluated under Step 2A are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Independent Claims 1, 9, and 19 do not recite additional elements, individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the lack of a practical application, the additional elements in the claim of a processor circuit, graphical user interface (GUI), gaming device, and a memory, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components used as tools. These additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable a game to be conducted by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and storing data, (ii) automating mental tasks and (iii) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Further, under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Here, the steps of the claims are deemed to be following rules of game, data gathering and data presentation extra-solution activity. Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that these limitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) and then to present or display said information is well known as in presenting offers and gathering statistics (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii). Accordingly, a conclusion that the step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. Therefore, these limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and do not amount to significantly more. Thus, Claims 1, 9, and 19 remain ineligible.
The dependent claims recite further extra-solution activities and further define the abstract idea of the independent claims.
Claims 2-8 inherit the same abstract idea as Claim 1.
Claims 10-18 inherit the same abstract idea as Claim 9.
Claim 20 inherit the same abstract idea as Claim 19.
In addition, the dependent Claims are also ineligible and lack a practical application.
AIA Notice
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 12-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0142740 A1 to Damico et al. (hereinafter Damico) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0079317 A1 to Flemming et al. (hereinafter Flemming) and further in view of U.S. Patent 9,659,457 to Mitelman et al.
Regarding Claim 1 (Currently Amended), and similarly recited Claims 9, 14, and 19, Damico discloses a system comprising:
a processor circuit (para. [0033] discloses processor 12); and
a memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit (para. [0033] discloses memory or storage device), cause the processor circuit to:
determine that a first bonus game trigger condition for a base wagering game at a gaming device has been met (paras. [0013], [0042], [0048]-[0049] discloses If the processor 12 senses a first bonus trigger at 30, the first bonus is initiated… accepting a wager and an apparatus for randomly selecting and presenting a base game outcome at the display representing combinations of game symbols. A processor is configured to compare selected game symbol combinations to determine winning or losing combinations and to issue an award for obtaining a winning, base game combination. The device further includes configuring the processor to detect an outcome including a first bonus trigger which may- be preselected symbols);
determine a first multiplier value associated with the bonus game (para. [0048] discloses the bonus determined a multiplier to be applied to the base game trigger award. Alternatively the multiplier could be applied to the total wager for the base game which triggered the bonus);
cause a graphical user interface (GUI) of the gaming device to display a first option to play the bonus game at the first multiplier value and a second option to increase the first multiplier value for a future bonus game (paras. [0013] discloses in response to detection of a first bonus trigger outcome, the processor is configured to control the display to display first and second selection sets, each set including a plurality of player selections);
based on a selection of the first option by a player at the gaming device:
initiate the bonus game (paras. [0049], [0051], [0053], [0057]-[0059] discloses If the base game outcome includes a first bonus trigger, at 110 the first bonus routine is enabled and at 112 the first bonus initial display ( e.g. FIG. 3) is displayed by the processor 12 at the display);
generate a bonus game result (paras. [0049], [0051], [0053], [0057]-[0059]);
determine a first bonus game award based on the bonus game result [0049], [0051], [0053], [0057]-[0059] discloses as the player makes their initial selection (Punch or Defend) and the processor 12 selects the outcome. If the selection is the correct (winning) selection, the multiplier award is issued to the player);
multiply the first bonus game award based on the first multiplier to generate a first total bonus game award (para. [0059] discloses If the base game outcome includes a first bonus trigger, at 110 the first bonus routine is enabled and at 112 the first bonus initial display ( e.g. FIG. 3) is displayed by the processor 12 at the display); and
award the first total bonus game award to the player (paras. [0049], [0051], [0053], [0057]-[0059] discloses The accumulated multiplier awards from the first bonus round(s) are awarded to the player at the conclusion of the first bonus which are then multiplied with the initial award of credits to the player); and
based on a selection of the second option by the player:
increase the first multiplier value to a second multiplier value higher than the first multiplier value (paras. [0043], [0045], [0061], [0062] discloses the processor 12 detects the selection and display of two or more second bonus trigger symbols, the second bonus is triggered);
remove the first bonus game trigger condition (paras. [0056]-[0057]); and
resume play of the base wagering game (paras. [0061] discloses The player is then returned to the base game to, at 100, input another wager).
However, Damico does not explicitly disclose the first multiplier value for a future bonus game. In related invention, Flemming discloses a bonus game, and the player is awarded a bonus-game asset in a first gaming session of the wagering game. A data set representing the bonus-game asset is stored, and, based on the data set, the player is allowed to use the bonus-game asset in a second gaming session. Flemming discloses the first multiplier value for a future bonus game (paras. [0052], [0064] discloses When the bonus round has ended, shown in FIG. 5, the player is given the option to play another bonus round or to save any remaining "Product Picks" for a future bonus round, e.g., a bonus round played in a subsequent wagering session … the player can collect other bonus-game assets, such as free spins, award multipliers, "can't lose" spins, side bets, free moves, bonus-round awards, credit amounts, etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the subsequent game feature of Flemming with the gaming system of Damico in order to a significantly higher level of player excitement than the basic game and also to further player excitement and provides the player an incentive to return to the game at a later date, as Flemming discloses is needed (see paras. [0005]-[0006], [0009]).
The combination of Damico and Fleming does not explicitly disclose “cause the GUI to display the second multiplier value in response to the selection of the second option by the player.”
In a related invention, Mitelman discloses cause the GUI to display the second multiplier value in response to the selection of the second option by the player (fig. 8, Col. 1:60-65, Col. 10:1-31). Displaying the resulting multiplier value after the player elects to increase it is conventional outcome feedback, and whether the value is displayed before or after the selection is an obvious matter of display design; see In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553 (CCPA 1975). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the features of Mitelman with the combination of Damico and Fleming in order to display the increased multiplier value after selection to confirm to the player the result of the elected option.
Regarding Claim 5 (Original), and similarly recited Claims 12-14, 20, Damico in view of Flemming discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first multiplier value is 1, and wherein the second multiplier value is 2 (Damico, paras. [0059]-[0062]).
Regarding Claim 15 (Original), Damico in view of Flemming discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the maximum multiplier value is 10 (Damico, [0059]-[0062], [0076]).
Claim 2, 6-7, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0142740 A1 to Damico et al. (hereinafter Damico) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0079317 A1 to Flemming et al. (hereinafter Flemming) and further in view of U.S. Patent 9,659,457 to Mitelman et al. and U.S. Patent 8,328,633 to Cohen et al.
Regarding Claim 2, and 17(Original) Damico in view of Flemming teaches the limitations of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above). Claim 2 recites performing, for a second bonus game trigger condition met after selection of the second option and resumption of play, the same option and multiplier steps recited for the first trigger above in Claim 1. The recited second iteration is a mere duplication of the steps already recited and yields no new or unexpected result; see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960). Further, Cohen discloses that, for a subsequent trigger of a bonus game, the multiplier employed is maintained on a per-player basis and based on the player's wagering activity since the last bonus play, thereby teaching carrying the increased ("second") multiplier value forward to a subsequent trigger and offering a further increase (Col. 3:25-46, Col. 3:64 – Col. 4:24). ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the features of the combination of Claim 1 to a subsequent bonus trigger, as taught by Cohen, in order to extend the player-choice multiplier features across successive bonus triggers and sustain player engagement during game play so the player can continue across multiple devices.
Regarding Claim 6, (Original) and similarly recited Claim 16, Damico in view of Fleming and Mitelman and Cohen discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor circuit to:
determine a game session for the base game being played by the player has ended; and based on the determination that the game session has ended, reduce the second multiplier value to the first multiplier value (Col. 3:25-46, Col. 3:64 – Col. 4:24).
Regarding Claim 7, and 17, (Original) Damico in view of Fleming and Mitelman and Cohen discloses the system of claim 6, and is similarly rejected as Claim 2. Additionally, wherein the instructions further cause the processor circuit to:
store an indication of the second multiplier value in a player account associated with the player;
determine that a second bonus game trigger condition for the base wagering game has been met by the player at another gaming device (Col. 3:25-46, Col. 3:64 – Col. 4:24);
cause the GUI to display a third option to play the bonus game at the second multiplier value and a fourth option to increase the second multiplier value for a future bonus game (Col. 3:25-46, Col. 3:64 – Col. 4:24);
based on a selection of the third option by the player:
initiate the bonus game (Col. 3:25-46, Col. 3:64 – Col. 4:24);
generate a second bonus game result (Col. 3:25-46, Col. 3:64 – Col. 4:24);
determine a second bonus game award based on the bonus game result (Col. 3:25-46, Col. 3:64 – Col. 4:24);
multiply the second bonus game award based on the second multiplier to generate a second total bonus game award (Col. 3:25-46, Col. 3:64 – Col. 4:24); and
award the second total bonus game award to the player (Col. 3:25-46, Col. 3:64 – Col. 4:24); and
based on a selection of the fourth option by the player (Col. 3:25-46, Col. 3:64 – Col. 4:24):
increase the second multiplier value to a third multiplier value higher than the second multiplier value (Col. 3:25-46, Col. 3:64 – Col. 4:24);
remove the second bonus game trigger condition (Col. 3:25-46, Col. 3:64 – Col. 4:24); and
resume play of the base wagering game (Col. 3:25-46, Col. 3:64 – Col. 4:24).
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0142740 A1 to Damico et al. (hereinafter Damico) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0079317 A1 to Flemming et al. (hereinafter Flemming) and further in view of U.S. Patent 9,659,457 to Mitelman et al. and US 2003/0216167 A1 to Gauselmann.
Regarding Claim 3, (Original) and similarly recited Claim 10, Damico in view of Fleming and Mitelman discloses the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly wherein the display of the second option comprises display of the second multiplier value prior to selection of the second option.
In a related invention, Gauselmann discloses wherein the display of the second option comprises display of the second multiplier value prior to selection of the second option (Figs. 4–5; ¶ [0004]). ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display the second (increased) multiplier value before selection so as to inform the player's choice between the first and second options
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0142740 A1 to Damico et al. (hereinafter Damico) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0079317 A1 to Flemming et al. (hereinafter Flemming) and further in view of U.S. Patent 9,659,457 to Mitelman et al. and US 2016/0055720 to Oles et al.
Regarding Claim 8, and similarly recited Claim 18, (Original) Damico in view of Fleming and Mitelman discloses the system of claim 1, but not explicitly wherein the instructions that increase the first multiplier value to the second multiplier value further cause the processor circuit to:
in response to a wager by the player for the base wagering game meeting a first wager threshold, add a first amount to the first multiplier value to generate the second multiplier value; and
in response to the wager meeting a second wager threshold greater than the first wager threshold, add a second amount larger than the first amount to the first multiplier value to generate the second multiplier value.
In a related invention, Oles discloses in response to a wager by the player for the base wagering game meeting a first wager threshold, add a first amount to the first multiplier value to generate the second multiplier value (paras. [0010]-[0012] discloses groups of multipliers with the wagered number of credits such that a higher wager corresponds to a higher multiplier group); and
in response to the wager meeting a second wager threshold greater than the first wager threshold, add a second amount larger than the first amount to the first multiplier value to generate the second multiplier value (paras. [0010]-[0012] discloses groups of multipliers with the wagered number of credits such that a higher wager corresponds to a higher multiplier group).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Oles with the combination of Damico/Fleming in order to incentivize higher wagers amongst the players when playing the game.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
As an initial matter, the indication in the prior Office action that claims 2–4, 6–8, 10–11, 14, and 16–18 contain allowable subject matter is withdrawn. Upon further consideration, the additional limitations of those claims recite only further rules of the wagering game and/or generic data-handling, and therefore neither confer subject-matter eligibility under § 101 nor patentably distinguish over the prior art under § 103. All claims 1–20 stand rejected above.
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are found to be unpersuasive. Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant has presented several responses as to why the claim is now eligible under 101. The Examiner disagrees for the following reasons below.
The amendments to independent claims 1, 9, and 19 added the limitation — “cause the GUI to display the second multiplier value in response to the selection of the second option by the player” (formerly cancelled Claim 4). As explained below, this added limitation neither integrates the recited abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two) nor supplies an inventive concept (Step 2B).
Applicant asserts (p. 11) that “[n]one of the above recited steps can be construed as 'certain methods of organizing human activity.” This is not persuasive. The amended claims still recite determining that a bonus trigger is met, determining a multiplier, offering the player a choice to play the bonus now or forgo it to grow the multiplier, computing and paying a multiplied award, or else increasing the multiplier and resuming play. These are rules for conducting and resolving a wagering game — both a fundamental economic practice and the management of player interactions by following rules. See In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Adding a step that displays the resulting multiplier value does not remove the abstract idea from the claim; it merely presents to the player a value produced by the abstract rule. Prong One is maintained.
The amended limitation recites only that the GUI “display the second multiplier value.” It specifies no particular manner of display, no interface structure, no rendering or layout technique, and no change to how the interface operates. Causing a display to output a value is the paradigmatic example of presenting information / insignificant extra-solution activity. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (merely presenting the results of an abstract process, "without more—such as identifying a particular tool for presentation," is abstract). Moreover, the value being displayed (the increased multiplier) is itself a direct product of the abstract game rule; displaying the output of the abstract idea is not integration of that idea into a practical application.
Applicant argues (pp. 11–13) that displaying the second multiplier value “builds a trust between the player and the gaming device,” facilitates “a meaningful human-to-machine interaction,” and lets the player “experience some control over the outcome.” These are characterizations of the player's subjective experience and engagement with the game — that is, of the abstract idea (the rules and play of the wagering game) — not of any technology. Enhancing a user's engagement, trust, or experience is not a technological improvement. See Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364–65 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (invoking a computer as a tool to improve a user's experience or make a process more efficient is not an improvement to the functioning of the computer or to any technology). The recited gaming device, processor, and display operate in exactly the same way whether or not the multiplier value is shown; nothing about the machine is improved in a technical sense. Likewise, affording the player a choice between two options is itself a rule of the game and thus part of the abstract idea — not something that integrates it.
Applicant relies (pp. 13–14) on Subject Matter Eligibility Example 37 (icon relocation). Claim 1 of Example 37 was found eligible at Prong Two because it recited a specific manner of automatically relocating the most-used icons to a position closest to the start icon based on a determined amount of use, which provided a specific improvement to the user interface itself — making frequently used functions faster and easier to access. The improvement was to the operation and usability of the interface as a tool. The amended claims here recite nothing analogous. Displaying a multiplier value “in response to” a selection (i) recites no specific manner of display (in contrast to Example 37's particular usage-based relocation rule), and (ii) effects no improvement to the operation, navigation, or usability of the interface — the interface displays a different number, nothing more. The only benefit Applicant identifies is to the player's experience of the game (trust, engagement, perceived control), which is an improvement to the abstract idea, not to the interface. Genuine GUI-improvement claims involve new interface structures or navigation paradigms. See Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (application-summary window improving device usability); Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (notebook-tab interface for navigating spreadsheets). Displaying a game value is not such an improvement.
Applicant argues (pp. 13–14) that the abstract idea is implemented with a particular machine integral to the claim. The claims recite only a “processor circuit,” “memory comprising machine-readable instructions,” a “graphical user interface,” and a “gaming device,” each at a high level of generality. These are generic computer components recited as tools to carry out the game rules. There is no structural specificity, and the machine neither transforms an article nor imposes any meaningful limit beyond providing an environment in which to run the rules. A general-purpose machine that merely applies an abstract idea is not a “particular machine.”
Applicant asserts (p. 14) an improvement to “the technology of electronic gaming.” At most, the claims provide a new or more engaging game — new rules of play and a new value to display. An improvement to the abstract idea is not an improvement to technology: “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The specification identifies no technical problem in electronic gaming that the claims solve and no improvement to the manner in which the gaming hardware functions.
Applicant argues (p. 14) that because the features of former claim 4 were indicated allowable over the art, those features “provide an improvement over prior systems.” Eligibility under § 101 is a separate inquiry from novelty and nonobviousness under §§ 102 and 103. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188–89 (1981); MPEP 2106.05(I) (the inventive-concept inquiry is not a novelty or obviousness determination). That a feature was not found in the prior art shows, at most, a new abstract idea (a new rule of the game or a new value to display), which remains abstract. SAP, 898 F.3d at 1163. (Applicant is further advised that the prior indication that claims 2–4, 6–8, 10–11, 14, and 16–18 would be allowable but for the § 101 rejection is hereby withdrawn; see the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 set forth above.)
Lastly, even if Prong Two were satisfied, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, whether considered individually or as an ordered combination. A processor, memory storing instructions, and a GUI that displays a value are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components performing their ordinary functions; displaying data on a GUI is a conventional computer function. See Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1355; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Adding a generic display of the multiplier to the abstract game rules adds no inventive concept.
For these reasons, the amendments do not place the claims in condition for allowance, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are examined above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUNA-KAY HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/S.N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights