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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/26/24 was acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Applicant's claim for domestic priority benefit of Provisional Application no 63/176096, filed 4/16/21, is acknowledged.
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior application no 17/710415, filed 3/31/22, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application constitutes a continuation.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11972655. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the present application are merely broader in scope than that of U.S. Patent No. 11972655. Therefore, U.S. Patent No. 11972655 “invention” meets the limitations of the instant application. See below for a comparison example.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 11972655
1. A gaming device, comprising: a housing; a processor within the housing and operative to: determine, using a random number generator or a lookup table: a first set of symbols chosen from a first reel strip; a second set of symbols chosen from an expanding reel strip; and a third set of symbols chosen from a third reel strip; control a display to display: the first set of symbols in a first column and a second column of a playing field; the second set of symbols in a third column of the playing field; and the third set of symbols in a fourth and a fifth column of the playing field, the third column being positioned between either the first and the second column or the fourth and the fifth column; determine if any of the second set of symbols is a special symbol; and in the event any of the second set of symbols is the special symbol, replace all symbols displayed in the third column with an expanded special symbol.
1. A gaming device, comprising: a housing; a wagering input for accepting a wager from a player, the wager representing an initial credit balance of the player with the gaming device; a processor within the housing and operative to: determine, through a first call to a random number generator, a first set of symbols chosen from a first reel; determine, through a second call to the random number generator, a second set of symbols chosen from an expanding reel; determine, through a third call to the random number generator, a third set of symbols chosen from a third reel; and a display attached to the housing and operative to: display the first set of symbols in a first and second column of a playing field; display the second set of symbols in a third column of the playing field; and display the third set of symbols in a fourth and fifth column of the playing field, the third column being positioned between either the first and second column or the fourth and fifth column; wherein the processor is further operative to: determine if any of the third set of symbols is a special symbol; and in the event any of the third set of symbols is a special symbol, replace all symbols displayed in the third column with an expanded special symbol; wherein the expanded special symbol replaces at least one picture symbol that has a higher value than another picture symbol on the first reel or the third reel.
11. A method for operating a slot type game, comprising: determining, by a processor using a random number generator or a lookup table: a first set of symbols chosen from a first non-expanding reel strip; a second set of symbols chosen from an expanding reel strip; and a third set of symbols chosen from a second non-expanding reel strip; displaying, on a display of an electronic gaming device: the first set of symbols in a first column and a second column of a playing field; the second set of symbols in a third column of the playing field; the third set of symbols in a fourth column and a fifth column of the playing field, the third column being positioned between either the first and the second column or the fourth and the fifth column; determining, by the processor, whether any of the second set of symbols is a special symbol; and in the event the processor determines that any of the second set of symbols is the special symbol, expanding a wild symbol to occupy all positions of the third column.
11. A method for operating a slot type wagering game, comprising: determining, by a processor calling a random number generator function a first time, a first set of symbols chosen from a first non-expanding reel; determining, by the processor calling the random number generator function a second time, a second set of symbols chosen from an expanding reel; determining, by the processor calling the random number generator a third time, a third set of symbols chosen from a second non-expanding reel; determining, by the processor, if any of the second set of symbols is a wild symbol; displaying, on a display of an electronic gaming device, the first set of symbols in a first column and a second column of a playing field; displaying, on the display of the electronic gaming device, the second set of symbols in a third column of the playing field; displaying, on the display of the electronic gaming device, the third set of symbols in a fourth column and a fifth column of the playing field, the third column being positioned between either the first and second column or the fourth and fifth column; determining, by the processor, if any of the second set of symbols is a wild symbol; in the event the processor determines any of the second set of symbols is a wild symbol, expanding the wild symbol to occupy all positions of the third column, thereby removing at least one symbol that has a higher value than another symbol on the first non-expanding reel or the second non-expanding reel from the third column; and determining if a combination of the first set of symbols, second set of symbols, and third set of symbols corresponds to a payout.
18. A computer-readable medium containing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors of one or more servers, cause the one or more processors to: initiate a playing field on a gaming device, by using a random number generator or a lookup table to assign a set of reels to the playing field; randomly determine, using the random number generator or the lookup table, when the set of reels is to be stopped, thereby determining a set of symbols to be shown on the playing field; determine whether a wild symbol is shown on the playing field; in the event the wild symbol is shown on the playing field, replacing at least one symbol in a column containing the wild symbol with an expanded wild symbol; wherein: the playing field is formed from multiple columns including a first pair of columns, a second pair of columns, and the column; and the column is positioned between either the first pair of columns or the second pair of columns.
18. A computer-readable medium containing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors of one or more servers, cause the one or more processors to: initiate a playing field on a gaming device, by using a random number generator or a lookup table to assign a set of reels to the playing field; randomly determine, using a random number generator or a lookup table, when the set of reels is to be stopped, thereby determining a set of symbols to be shown on the playing field; determine whether a wild symbol is shown on the playing field; in the event the wild symbol is shown on the playing field, replacing at least one symbol that has a higher value than another symbol on the set of reels in a column containing the wild symbol with an expanded wild symbol; wherein: the playing field is formed from multiple columns; at least one of the set of reels is an expanding reel; the expanding reel comprises: the wild symbol; and the at least one symbol adjacent the wild symbol; a first reel of the set of reels is assigned to a first pair of columns; a second reel of the set of reels is assigned to a second pair of columns; and the expanding reel is assigned to a column positioned between either the first pair of columns or the second pair of column.
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 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter wherein the claim recites a processing program that is not claimed as embodied in a non-transitory storage medium. Because Applicant's disclosure is not limited solely to tangible embodiments, the claimed subject matter, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, may be a carrier wave comprising of instructions and is, therefore, non-statutory. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable storage medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable storage media, particularly when the specification is silent. (See MPEP 2111.01). When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter (See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2).
To overcome this type of rejection, the claim need to be amended to include only the physical computer storage media unassociated with any intangible or non-functional transmission media. Examiner suggests adding the word – non-transitory – to the claim. Other word choices will be considered but the one proposed shall overcome the rejection. Appropriate attention is required.
Further, in the instant application, claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A:
However, claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For instance, regarding independent claim(s) 1, 11, 18,
Prong 1 analysis:
The limitations of “determine, using a lookup table: a first set of symbols chosen from a first reel strip; a second set of symbols chosen from an expanding reel strip; and a third set of symbols chosen from a third reel strip; display: the first set of symbols in a first column and a second column of a playing field; the second set of symbols in a third column of the playing field; and the third set of symbols in a fourth and a fifth column of the playing field, the third column being positioned between either the first and the second column or the fourth and the fifth column; determine if any of the second set of symbols is a special symbol; and in the event any of the second set of symbols is the special symbol, replace all symbols displayed in the third column with an expanded special symbol”, are considered to fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (managing personal behavior, rules). The mere nominal recitation of generic computer elements does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-10, 12-17, 19-20 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Prong 2 analysis:
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the additional elements “a housing, a processor within the housing, a random number generator, a display”, are generically recited computer elements that do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these additional elements 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. Furthermore, the above-identified generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer. The claimed elements are recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering and data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Each of the additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, in view of Berkheimer, the recited additional elements are considered as conventional activity. For instance, Aoki et al. (2013/0102375) teaches the recited additional elements (Fig 1-3, ¶¶0018-0021, 0027).
In addition, with regards to dependent claims, the courts have recognized the computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
For instance, regarding claims 1-20, each claim describes physical or software elements that provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea, which is similar to the conventional activity or as insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting information, based on types of information, for collection, analysis and display in EPG, gathering, receiving and transmitting data in Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs., buySAFE, and rules in In re Smith.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 is/are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dejavu Slots (NPL: Super Mega Win Fire Light Wonder 4) in view of Aoki et al. (2013/0102375) and Gomez et al. (2010/0016061).
Re Claim 1,
Dejavu Slots discloses a gaming device, comprising: a housing; a processor within the housing and operative to (pg 1):
determine a first set of symbols chosen from a first reel strip; a second set of symbols chosen from a reel strip; and a third set of symbols chosen from a third reel strip (pg 1, see screenshot below; the leftmost columns are considered as a first set of symbols, the rightmost columns are considered as a third set of symbols, the middle column is considered as a second set of symbols);
control a display to display: the first set of symbols in a first column and a second column of a playing field; the second set of symbols in a third column of the playing field; and the third set of symbols in a fourth and a fifth column of the playing field, the third column being positioned between either the first and the second column or the fourth and the fifth column (pg 1, see screenshot below; the two left columns are considered as a first column and a second column, the two right columns are considered as a fourth column and a fifth column, the middle column is considered as a third column).
PNG
media_image1.png
854
1084
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Dejavu Slots does not explicitly disclose using a random number generator or a lookup table, expanding a reel and determining if any of the second set of symbols is a special symbol, and in the event any of the second set of symbols is the special symbol, replace all symbols displayed in the third column with an expanded special symbol.
However, Aoki teaches using a random number generator or a lookup table and expanding a reel (Fig 6A-6G, ¶¶0054-0056). Aoki further teaches such a configuration attracts frequent play and provides increased profitability for the operators (¶0004). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Aoki into the wagering of Dejavu Slots in order to attract frequent play and provide increased profitability for the operators.
Gomez teaches determining if any of the second set of symbols is a special symbol, and in the event any of the second set of symbols is the special symbol, replace all symbols displayed in the third column with an expanded special symbol (Fig 3-5, ¶¶0049-0051). Gomez further teaches such a configuration attracts frequent play through enhanced entertainment value to the player (¶0004). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Gomez into the wagering game of Dejavu Slots in order to attract frequent play through enhanced entertainment value to the player.
Re Claim 2,
Dejavu Slots discloses all limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the special symbol is a wild symbol. However, Gomez teaches the special symbol is a wild symbol (Fig 3-5, ¶¶0049-0051). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claim 3,
Dejavu Slots discloses all limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose a total number of positions in the third column is greater than a total number of positions in at least one other column. However, Aoki teaches a total number of positions in the third column is greater than a total number of positions in at least one other column (Fig 6A-6G, ¶¶0054-0056). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claim 4,
Dejavu Slots discloses the first and the second columns are to a left of the third column; or the fourth and the fifth columns are to a right of the third column (pg 1, see screenshot above).
Re Claim 5,
Dejavu Slots discloses the gaming device uses a payline with diagonal elements (pg 1, see screenshot above).
Re Claim 6,
Dejavu Slots discloses all limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose determine, using the random number generator or the lookup table, a fourth set of symbols chosen from an additional expanding reel strip; and the processor is further operative to control the display to display the fourth set of symbols in a sixth column of the playing field. However, Aoki teaches determine, using the random number generator or the lookup table, a fourth set of symbols chosen from an additional expanding reel strip; and the processor is further operative to control the display to display the fourth set of symbols in a sixth column of the playing field (¶¶0070-0071). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claim 7,
Dejavu Slots discloses all limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the sixth column is adjacent to the third column. However, Aoki teaches the sixth column is adjacent to the third column (¶¶0070-0071). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claim 8,
Dejavu Slots discloses all limitations as set forth above including an animation but does not explicitly disclose the expanded special symbol expands from the special symbol, thereby replacing all symbols displayed in the third column. However, Gomez teaches the expanded special symbol expands from the special symbol, thereby replacing all symbols displayed in the third column (Fig 3-5, ¶¶0049-0051). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claim 9,
Dejavu Slots discloses the display is a component of the gaming device (pg 1, see screenshot above).
Re Claim 10,
Dejavu Slots discloses the display is a component of an electronic device that communicates with the gaming device (pg 1, see screenshot above).
Re Claims 11, 18,
Claims are substantially similar to claim 1. See claim for rejection and motivation.
Re Claim 12,
Dejavu Slots discloses the symbols shown in the first column and the second column are identical (pg 1, see screenshot above).
Re Claim 13,
Dejavu Slots discloses all limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the expanding reel is selected from a group of expanding reels. However, Gomez teaches the expanding reel is selected from a group of expanding reels (Fig 3-5, ¶¶0049-0051). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claim 14,
Dejavu Slots discloses only the expanding reel includes the wild symbol (pg 1, see screenshot above).
Re Claim 15,
Dejavu Slots discloses the special symbol is the wild symbol (pg 1, see screenshot above).
Re Claim 16,
Dejavu Slots discloses all limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the special symbol is a multiplier. However, Gomez teaches the special symbol is a multiplier (Fig 3-5, ¶¶0049-0051). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claim 17,
Dejavu Slots discloses all limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the wild symbol expands to occupy all positions of the third column, it displaces at least one picture symbol. However, Gomez teaches the wild symbol expands to occupy all positions of the third column, it displaces at least one picture symbol (Fig 3-5, ¶¶0049-0051). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claim 19,
Dejavu Slots discloses all limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose assigning an expanding reel to a second column of the multiple columns. However, Aoki teaches assigning an expanding reel to a second column of the multiple columns (Fig 6A-6G, ¶¶0054-0056).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TAHAI YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1777. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 7am- 3pm PST.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON T YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715