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 .
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 pass step 1 of the test for eligibility.
As per step 2A prong one, the claims are evaluated to determine whether the claims recite a judicial exception. Representative claim 1 recites, with emphasis added:
A gaming system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device which stores a plurality of instructions, which when executed by the processor, for a symbol accumulation sequence, cause the processor to:
cause a display, by a display device, of a plurality of symbol displays configured to display award symbols at symbol display positions associated with the symbol displays;
cause a display, by a display device, of a plurality of randomly determined initial award symbols on the symbol displays at a plurality of the symbol display positions, wherein each of the award symbols indicates an award amount associated with that award symbol;
cause a display, by a display device, of an activation counter that indicates a remaining quantity of activations of the symbol displays for the symbol accumulation sequence;
for each of a first quantity of activations of the symbol displays, the first quantity being at least one:
cause a display, by the display device, of one or more of the award symbols on the symbol displays at the symbol display positions, wherein each of said award symbols indicates an award amount associated with that award symbol, and wherein each of said award symbols are first award symbols, and
cause a display, by the display device, of a reset of the activation counter;
cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of an occurrence of a first future accumulation award amount enhancement feature triggering event;
cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of a first future accumulation award amount; and
for each of a second quantity of activations of the symbol displays, the second quantity being at least one:
cause a display, by the display device, of one or more of the award symbols on the symbol displays at the symbol display positions, wherein each of said award symbols indicates an award amount associated with that award symbol, wherein each of said award symbols are second award symbols,
cause a display, by the display device, of an increase of each of said award amounts associated with said second award symbols to the first future accumulation award amount, and without increasing any of the award amounts associated with the first award symbols, and
cause a display, by the display device, of a reset of the activation counter.
The above underlined portion of representative claim 1 recites a judicial exception because they are certain methods of organizing human activity, as they are following rules or instructions, as the invention is directed towards rules for conducting a wagering game.
Next, as per step 2A prong two, the claims are evaluated to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
The elements recited above that are not underlined in representative claim 1 comprise the additional elements. As discussed in more detail below, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
A processor, memory and display is/are not an integration into a practical application as it is mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Displaying of the results of the wagering game being conducted by the abstract rules for conducting the wagering game is/are extra-solution activity as these extra solution activities are insignificant data gathering and data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Next, as per step 2B, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception.
A processor and memory does not amount to significantly more as it is mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Displaying of the results of the wagering game being conducted by the abstract rules for conducting the wagering game is/are extra-solution activity as these extra solution activities are well known data gathering and data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), thus they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The dependent claims of 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are further rejected under 101 for the reasons described above as they simply further define the abstract idea (which makes the abstract idea no less abstract) without adding significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) and do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Further, taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shane (US 20240153354).
In claims 1, 8, and 15 Shane discloses
A processor and a memory device which stores a plurality of instructions, which when executed by the processor, for a symbol accumulation sequence, cause the processor to (figure 4 #1010, 1016)
Cause a display, by a display device (figure 4 #1035), of a plurality of symbol displays configured to display award symbols at symbol display positions associated with the symbol displays (figure 2A #210, 220, 230, 240, 250)
Cause a display by the display device, of a plurality of randomly determined initial award symbols on the symbol displays at a plurality of symbol display positions wherein each of the award symbols indicates an award amount associated with that award symbol (figure 2A #251, 252, 272)
Cause a display, by the display device, of an activation counter that indicates a remaining quantity of activations of the symbol displays for the symbol accumulation sequence (paragraph 72 “cause a display of an activation counter that indicates a remaining quantity of activations of the symbol displays for the symbol accumulation sequence”)
For each of a first quantity of activations on the symbol displays, the first quantity being at least one: (figure 2E, “respins: 3”, each respin is a quantity of “activations”, as described in paragraph 48) cause a display, by the display device, of one or more of the award symbols on the symbol displays at the symbol display position, wherein each of said award symbols indicates an award amount associated with that award symbol, and wherein each of said award symbols are first award symbols, (figures 2E-2N, for example #251) and cause a display by the display device of a reset of the activation counter (paragraph 72, reset of the activation counter)
Cause a display by the display device of an indication of an occurrence of a first accumulation award amount enhancement feature triggering event Cause a display by the display device, of an indication of a first future accumulation award amount and (figure 2J shows a “double up!” which applies an increase in the awards as per figure 2K)
For each of a second quantity of activations of the symbol displays, the second quantity being at least one: cause a display by the display device, of one or more of the award symbols on the symbol displays at the symbol display positions, wherein each of said award symbols indicates an award amount associated with that award symbol, wherein each of said award symbols are second award symbols, (figure 2N and 2O shows a reset of the respins back to 3, and then continued accumulation of award symbols thru 2ZZ)
cause a display, by the display device, of an increase of each of said award amounts associated with said first award symbols to the first future accumulation award amount, and without increasing any of the award amounts associated with the second award symbols, and (Figure 2R. It is noted by examiner that this increases the past award amounts, in contrast to the instant application, which increases the future award amounts)
cause a display, by the display device, of a reset of the activation counter (paragraph 72 reset of the activation counter)
Further, Shane teaches the additional limitations of claim 8 (as well as dependent claims 2, 3, 16, and 17), Shane further discloses repeating the process one additional time, with a second future accumulation award amount which is greater than the first future accumulation award amount (figure 2W shows a second double up, which applies an increase as per figure 2X, which is larger than the previous accumulation award, as it is doubling up larger values. Also figure 2S, 2T shows a reset on the number of activations back to 3, as well as continued display of further award symbols indicating an award amount)
Shane fails to disclose that the future accumulation award amount increases the second (future) award symbols without increasing any of the award amounts with the first (past) award symbols, however Marks discloses a future accumulation award which increases the second award symbols (figure 8C-8J. Figure 8C shows first award symbols “mini”, “mini”, “10”, “20”, “10”, “10”, and #846 shows a “repeater prize”, which is shown to be “3050” as per figure 8E. the second award symbol of figure 8H #804 is shown to increase and be set to the increased repeater prize as shown in figure 8J). This combination would teach the invention as taught in Shane, but with increasing future prizes rather than past prizes as taught in Marks. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Shane with Marks in order to allow for increased excitement by the user due to increased anticipation.
In claims 4, 9, and 18, Shane discloses the second future accumulation award amount includes the first future accumulation award amount (figure 2W shows the 650 which was accumulated via the first future accumulation award amount, and then figure 2X shows the increase of 650 while retaining the other double up and boosts)
In claims 5 and 10, Shane discloses a player selection feature to cause a determination of the first future accumulation award amount (paragraph 147)
In claims 6, 11, 13 and 19, Shane discloses the indication of the occurrence of the first future accumulation award amount enhancement feature triggering event to be an enhancement feature triggering symbol on one of the symbol displays at one of the symbol display position during one of the first quantity of activations of the symbol displays (figure 2V #313, 315, 315)
In claims 7, 12, 14 and 20, Shane discloses the enhancement feature triggering symbol changing to the first future accumulation award amount (figure 2W, the symbols are transformed to “double up!”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Marks2 (US 20210241572) discloses a trigger event in a hold and spin feature may increase the prize value amount for configurable symbols for one of more future spins (paragraph 149)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS HAYNES HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-3905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/THOMAS H HENRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715