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
Applicant's arguments filed May 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the tiered award structure provides for a technical solution to a technical problem and that through this tiered award system memory resources are conserved. Examiner disagrees and notes that Applicant’s arguments and the cited portion of the specification do not provide for any technical details and instead appear to be assertions without any technical grounding. Furthermore, the tier awards and are claimed are abstract game rules that are easily recognizable to anyone that has been to a carnival and seen a racks of stuffed animals in ever increasing size arrayed next to a carnival game. Accordingly, the claims remain ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception. The claims will be analyzed with respect to the Subject Matter Eligibility Test at MPEP§2106.
Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 1 (see MPEP§2106.03)
The claims recite one of the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 2A Prong 1 (see MPEP§2106.04(a-c))
The claims recite abstract ideas in the following categories;
Methods of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) see specifically ii. rules for conducting a wagering game, In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016); (MPEP§2106.04(a)(2)II) (hereinafter “MOHA”).
The abstract ideas have been noted in the claims below.
Regarding claim 1, an electronic game that includes a base game mode and a feature game mode (MOHA – rules of a wagering game regarding different game modes): wherein the plurality of presentation records includes: a first presentation record set including presentation records each including an outcome of the base game mode without a feature (MOHA – rules of a wagering game regarding award determinations/amounts); a second presentation record set including presentation records each including a feature of the base game mode (MOHA – rules of a wagering game regarding award determinations/amounts); and a third presentation record set including presentation records each including a feature of the feature game mode (MOHA – rules of a wagering game regarding award determinations/amounts); wherein the first presentation record set is associated with a first range of award values, the second presentation record set is associated with a second range of award values different from the first range, and the third presentation record set is associated with a third range of award values different from the first range and the second range (MOHA – rules of a wagering game regarding award determinations/amounts); determine an award value for a play of the electronic game (MOHA – rules of a wagering game regarding award amounts); select a data tier of the plurality of data tiers based upon the award value (MOHA – rules of a wagering game regarding award amounts); access the selected data tier to select a presentation record from the selected data tier, wherein the selected data tier is the only data tier of the plurality of data tiers accessed to select the selected presentation record (MOHA – rules of a wagering game regarding award selection and gameplay progression).
Regarding claim 2, the electronic gaming system of claim 1, wherein the award value is determined based upon a bingo game outcome (MOHA – rules of a wagering game regarding the type of game).
Regarding claim 3, the electronic gaming system of claim 1, wherein the feature of the feature game mode comprises a first feature, the first feature being a hold-and-spin game that includes first and second play areas (MOHA – rules of a wagering game regarding game elements), wherein, when the selected presentation record is from the third presentation record set (MOHA – rules of a wagering game regarding award determinations/amounts) show a visual indication that the hold-and-spin game is triggered (MOHA – rules of a wagering game regarding information to be shown to a player); initiate play of the hold-and-spin game by populating a first type of feature symbol in the first play area and a second type of feature symbol in the second play area, each of the populated feature symbols associated with an award value (MOHA – rules of a wagering game regarding information to be shown to a player); and show of one or more spins of the hold-and-spin game, wherein, when a feature symbol of the first type appears in the second play area, the first play area is populated with an additional feature symbol of the first type and the feature symbol of the first type in the second play area is converted to the second type (MOHA – rules of a wagering game regarding information to be shown to a player).
Regarding claim 4, the electronic gaming system of claim 3, wherein, when the feature symbol of the first type appears in the second play area, the first play area is populated with the additional feature symbol of the first type in a corresponding symbol position as the feature symbol of the first type appearing in the second play area (MOHA – rules of a wagering game regarding information to be shown to a player).
Regarding claim 5, the electronic gaming system of claim 4, wherein, when the corresponding symbol position is already populated with an existing feature symbol, the award value of the existing feature symbol is increased by the award value of the feature symbol of the first type appearing in the second play area (MOHA – rules of a wagering game regarding information to be shown to a player).
Regarding claim 6, the electronic gaming system of claim 3, wherein the visual indication that the hold-and-spin feature game is triggered is a triggering number of bonus tokens collected (MOHA – rules of a wagering game regarding information to be shown to a player).
Regarding claim 7, the electronic gaming system of claim 3, wherein the feature of the feature game mode comprises a second feature, the second feature being a pick bonus game (MOHA – rules of a wagering game regarding gameplay continuation).
Claims 8-20 recited the abstract ideas of claims 1-7 mutatis mutandis.
Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 2A Prong 2 (see MPEP§2106.04(d))
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a memory, processor, display, other generic computer hardware; insignificant extra solution activity such as collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data; and the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer. These additional elements individually and in combination provide for limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These additional elements (1) add “insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g)” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) and (2) generally link “the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I).
These additional elements individually and in combination are not limitations that provide for “improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) apply or use the “judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) implement the “judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) effect “a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) or apply or use “the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I). As such the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 2B (see MPEP§2106.05)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional generic computer hardware and insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP§2106.05). The claimed additional elements with citations indicating their well-understood, routine and conventional nature are provided below.
See US 2008/0254854 at para. 24 for the use of a display.
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 PETER J IANNUZZI whose telephone number is (571)272-5793. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-5:30PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached at 571-270-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER J IANNUZZI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights