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 .
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 abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) “A method comprising: configuring a computing system to operate using a first jackpot state for a game with multiple jackpot states; providing, at a user interface of the computing system, a user-selectable control to initiate each instance of the game; performing, in response to selection of the user-selectable control, a first instance of the game while the computing system operates using the first jackpot state; determining, an outcome of the first instance of the game, wherein the outcome of the first instance of the game includes an outcome to change from the first jackpot state to a second jackpot state; outputting, on a display of the computing system, an outcome of the first instance of the game; configuring the computing system to operate using the second jackpot state for a second instance of the game; performing, in response to selection of the user-selectable control, the second instance of the game while the computing system operates using the second jackpot state; determining an outcome of the second instance of the game; and outputting, on the display of the computing system, the outcome of the second instance of the game.” (Claim 1); “A computing system comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable memory storing executable instructions, wherein execution of the instructions by the processor causes the computing system to perform the following functions: configuring the computing system to operate using a first jackpot state for a game with multiple jackpot states; providing, at a user interface of the computing system, a user-selectable control to initiate each instance of the game; performing, in response to selection of the user-selectable control, a first instance of the game while the computing system operates using the first jackpot state; determining, an outcome of the first instance of the game, wherein the outcome of the first instance of the game includes an outcome to change from the first jackpot state to a second jackpot state; outputting, on a display of the computing system, an outcome of the first instance of the game; configuring the computing system to operate using the second jackpot state for a second instance of the game; performing, in response to selection of the user-selectable control, the second instance of the game while the computing system operates using the second jackpot state; determining an outcome of the second instance of the game; and outputting, on the display of the computing system, the outcome of the second instance of the game.” (Claim 19); and “A non-transitory computer-readable memory having stored therein instructions executable by a processor to cause a computing system to perform functions comprising: configuring the computing system to operate using a first jackpot state for a game with multiple jackpot states; providing, at a user interface of the computing system, a user-selectable control to initiate each instance of the game; performing, in response to selection of the user-selectable control, a first instance of the game while the computing system operates using the first jackpot state; determining, an outcome of the first instance of the game, wherein the outcome of the first instance of the game includes an outcome to change from the first jackpot state to a second jackpot state; outputting, on a display of the computing system, an outcome of the first instance of the game; configuring the computing system to operate using the second jackpot state for a second instance of the game; performing, in response to selection of the user-selectable control, the second instance of the game while the computing system operates using the second jackpot state; determining an outcome of the second instance of the game; and outputting, on the display of the computing system, the outcome of the second instance of the game.” (Claim 20). Each of the above underlined portions are related to an abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity, particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions for managing instances of a game including at least a first jackpot state and a second jackpot). The interaction encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping). In this case, instructions or rules to “operate using a first jackpot state for a game with multiple jackpot states; providing, a user-selectable control to initiate each instance of the game; performing, in response to selection of the user-selectable control, a first instance of the game using the first jackpot state; determining, an outcome of the first instance of the game, wherein the outcome of the first instance of the game includes an outcome to change from the first jackpot state to a second jackpot state; outputting an outcome of the first instance of the game; using the second jackpot state for a second instance of the game; performing, in response to selection of the user-selectable control, the second instance of the game using the second jackpot state; determining an outcome of the second instance of the game; and outputting the outcome of the second instance of the game” (Claim 1); “using a first jackpot state for a game with multiple jackpot states; providing a user-selectable control to initiate each instance of the game; performing, in response to selection of the user-selectable control, a first instance of the game using the first jackpot state; determining, an outcome of the first instance of the game, wherein the outcome of the first instance of the game includes an outcome to change from the first jackpot state to a second jackpot state; outputting, an outcome of the first instance of the game; using the second jackpot state for a second instance of the game; performing, in response to selection of the user-selectable control, the second instance of the game using the second jackpot state; determining an outcome of the second instance of the game; and outputting the outcome of the second instance of the game” (Claim 19); and “using a first jackpot state for a game with multiple jackpot states; providing a user-selectable control to initiate each instance of the game; performing, in response to selection of the user-selectable control, a first instance of the game using the first jackpot state; determining, an outcome of the first instance of the game, wherein the outcome of the first instance of the game includes an outcome to change from the first jackpot state to a second jackpot state; outputting, an outcome of the first instance of the game; using the second jackpot state for a second instance of the game; performing, in response to selection of the user-selectable control, the second instance of the game using the second jackpot state; determining an outcome of the second instance of the game; and outputting, the outcome of the second instance of the game” (Claim 20) pertain to concepts performed via managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) pertaining to organizing human activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (particularly the technological environment of a gaming device and/or gaming system) (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). Additionally, the limitations pertaining to “outputting, on a display of the computing system, an outcome of the first instance of the game….. outputting, on the display of the computing system, the outcome of the second instance of the game” (Claim 1); “outputting, on a display of the computing system, an outcome of the first instance of the game….. outputting, on the display of the computing system, the outcome of the second instance of the game” (Claim 19); “outputting, on a display of the computing system, an outcome of the first instance of the game… outputting, on the display of the computing system, the outcome of the second instance of the game.” (Claim 20) is recited at a low level of generality and amounts to mere post solution outputting (via a display), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The claimed computer components (computer system, user interface, display, graphical user interface, processor, computer-readable medium) are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea..
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. The recitations of utilization of “computer system”, “user interface”, “display”, “graphical user interface”, “processor”, and “computer-readable medium” are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility (the use of a computing device and/or generic components is merely illustrating the environment in which the abstract idea is practiced). These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. Taking the physical elements individually and in combination, the computer-based components perform purely generic computer-based functions that are silent in regards to clearly indicating how a computer aids method, system, and/or medium or to which a computer performs/implements the method, system, and/or medium. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer, ’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
It is settled law that adding physical elements to an abstract idea will not amount to an “inventive concept" if the physical elements are well-known, routine and conventional elements and they perform their well-known, routine and conventional functions. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, L.L.C. (Fed Cir 2016):
Turning to the second step in our analysis, we find that the claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner into a patent-eligible application of that idea. It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294). We agree with the district court that the claims’ recitation of a “telephone unit,” a “server”, an “image analysis unit,” and a “control unit” fail to add an inventive concept sufficient to bring the abstract idea into the realm of patentability. (Emphasis added by Examiner.)
On the question of preemption, the Federal Circuit has stated in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of DNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
Nor do the dependent claims 2-18 add “significantly more” since they merely add to the claimed concepts relating to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) pertaining to organizing human activity. The dependent claims failing to place the claimed invention into a practical applicant or additional generic components of the dependent claims failing to amount to “significantly more” for the same reasons noted above.
Consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claim are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 12, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hughs (2023/0087870).
Claims 1 and 19-20: Hughes discloses a method for operating a computer system, wherein the computer system comprises: a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable memory storing executable instructions, wherein execution of the instructions by the processor causes the computer system to perform the following functions (¶ 3-5, 28, 78-79, 87-89, 93-95) comprising: configuring a computing system to operate using a first jackpot state for a game with multiple jackpot states; providing, at a user interface of the computing system (¶ 41, 100, 107-108, 111-112 (icon displayed on a touch screen that activated via the user to initiate each instance of the game), ¶ 114-115), a user-selectable control to initiate each instance of the game (¶ 41, 100, 107-108, 111-112 (icon displayed on a touch screen that activated via the user to initiate each instance of the game), ¶ 114-115); performing, in response to selection of the user-selectable control (¶ 41), a first instance of the game while the computing system operates using the first jackpot state; determining, an outcome of the first instance of the game, wherein the outcome of the first instance of the game includes an outcome to change from the first jackpot state to a second jackpot state; outputting, on a display of the computing system, an outcome of the first instance of the game (¶ 41-47); configuring the computing system to operate using the second jackpot state for a second instance of the game; performing, in response to selection of the user-selectable control (¶ 48), the second instance of the game while the computing system operates using the second jackpot state; determining an outcome of the second instance of the game; and outputting, on the display of the computing system, the outcome of the second instance of the game (¶ 28-39, 41-54).
Claim 2: Hughes teaches providing the computing system with first control data (data/instructions a processor uses to control performing instances of games)(¶ 3-5, 28, 93-95), wherein the first control data includes the following for each jackpot state (each reel associated with a corresponding jackpot): a rate of incrementing a jackpot state of the game, a rate of incrementing the jackpot state and awarding a jackpot prize, and a jackpot value, wherein configuring the computing system to operate using the first jackpot state includes providing a random number generator with a request based on the first control data for the first jackpot state, and wherein configuring the computing system to operate using the second jackpot state includes providing the random number generator (¶ 95, 133, 178) with a request based on the first control data for the second jackpot state (¶ 25, 28-39, 41-54). As best understood given it’s broadest reasonably interpretation the first jackpot instance is a first round of a game corresponding to a first reel and corresponding jackpot and the second jackpot instance is a second/subsequent round of the game corresponding to the first reel and corresponding jackpot.
Claim 3: Hughes teaches wherein the multiple jackpot states are a first set of jackpot states (for a first round of a game, each reel corresponds to a respective jackpot e.g. a first set of jackpot states), wherein a second set of jackpot states include multiple jackpot states (for a second round of a game each reel corresponds to the same respective jackpot e.g. a second set of jackpot states), wherein the method further comprises providing the computing system with second control data (data/instructions a processor uses to control performing instances of games)(¶ 3-5, 28, 93-95), wherein the second control data includes the following for each jackpot state of the second set of jackpot states: a rate of incrementing a jackpot state of the game, a rate of incrementing the jackpot state and awarding a jackpot prize, and a jackpot value (¶ 25, 28-39, 41-54), and wherein the first control data is different than the second control data (see above, first control data corresponding to instructions for the first round of the game and the second control data corresponding the second round of the game).
Claim 5: Hughes teaches wherein the multiple jackpot states include a sequence of jackpot states beginning at an initial jackpot state and ending at a final jackpot state, and wherein the sequence of jackpot states includes a penultimate jackpot state immediately before the final jackpot state (¶ 28-39, 41-54, initial jackpot 225 at 2175 credits and final jackpot state 225 at 2500 credits, wherein the sequence includes a penultimate jackpot state defined when each coin 262 and/or 263 is separately added to the jackpot changing the jackpot state each time until the final jackpot state of 2500 credits is collected).
Claim 12: Hughes teaches wherein a jackpot value corresponding to each jackpot state in the sequence of jackpot states increases from a minimum jackpot value corresponding to the initial jackpot state up to a maximum jackpot value corresponding to the final jackpot state (¶ 28-39, 41-54, initial jackpot 225 at 2175 credits and final jackpot state 225 at 2500 credits, wherein the sequence includes a penultimate jackpot state defined when each coin 262 and/or 263 is separately added to the jackpot changing the jackpot state each time until the final jackpot state of 2500 credits is collected).
Claim 17: Hughes teaches wherein outputting the outcome of the first instance of the game includes displaying, on the display, a first subset of symbols corresponding to a first virtual reel (Fig. 2a, example reel 220 having symbols 222a-c), wherein outputting the outcome of the second instance of the game includes displaying, on the display, a second subset of symbols corresponding to the first virtual reel (Fig. 2b, example reel 220 having symbols 222a-c), and wherein the first jackpot state and the second jackpot state correspond to outcomes of the game shown on the first virtual reel (¶ 41-54).
Claim 18: Hughes teaches wherein outputting the outcome of the first instance of the game includes displaying, on the display, first subsets of symbols, each first subset of symbols corresponding to a respective one virtual reel of a set of virtual reels (Fig. 2a. illustrates a first subset of symbols, each first subset of symbols corresponding to a respective one virtual reel of a set of virtual reels), wherein outputting the outcome of the second instance of the game includes displaying, on the display, second subsets of symbols, each second subset of symbols corresponding to the respective one virtual reel of the set of virtual reels (Fig. 2b illustrates second subsets of symbols, each second subset of symbols corresponding to the respective one virtual reel of the set of virtual reels), and wherein the first jackpot state and the second jackpot state correspond to outcomes of the game shown on the set of virtual reels (¶ 41-54).
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 12-13, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Winata (US 2024/0395110).
Claims 1 and 19-20: Winata discloses a method for operating a computer system, wherein the computer system comprises a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable memory storing executable instructions, wherein execution of the instructions by the processor causes the computer system to perform the following functions (abstract, ¶ 6-9, 45-46, 52-57) comprising: configuring a computing system to operate using a first jackpot state for a game with multiple jackpot states; providing, at a user interface of the computing system, a user-selectable control to initiate each instance of the game (¶ 30, 52-53); performing, in response to selection of the user-selectable control (¶ 30, 52-53, Fig. 5, step 505), a first instance of the game while the computing system operates using the first jackpot state (award total (831)); determining, an outcome of the first instance of the game, wherein the outcome of the first instance of the game includes an outcome to change from the first jackpot state (jackpot state (831) is initially 528 credits in Fig. 11) to a second jackpot state (jackpot state (831) is changed to 1056 credits in Fig. 12); outputting, on a display of the computing system, an outcome of the first instance of the game (Figs. 11-12, 15-16, ¶ 55-70, 73-76); configuring the computing system to operate using the second jackpot state (831) for a second instance of the game; performing, in response to selection of the user-selectable control (¶ 71, Figs. 14-15), the second instance of the game while the computing system operates using the second jackpot state (jackpot state of 1056 credits is used and changed to 1760 credits due to the second instance of the game); determining an outcome of the second instance of the game; and outputting, on the display of the computing system, the outcome of the second instance of the game (Figs. 16-17, ¶ 55-70, 73-78).
Claim 5: Winata discloses wherein the multiple jackpot states include a sequence of jackpot states beginning at an initial jackpot state and ending at a final jackpot state, and wherein the sequence of jackpot states includes a penultimate jackpot state immediately before the final jackpot state (see above, the initial jackpot state (831) at 528 credits, the penultimate jackpot state (831) at 1760 credits and the final jackpot state (831) at 3344 credits as seen in Fig. 17, ¶ 76-78).
Claim 6: Winata teaches wherein an outcome for each instance of the game includes one of the following outcomes: a no effect on jackpot outcome, an increment jackpot outcome, or an increment and award jackpot outcome (Fig. 5, steps 525, 530, 535 and descriptions thereof, Fig. 7, steps 730, 735, 740 and descriptions thereof).
Claim 12: Winata teaches wherein a jackpot value corresponding to each jackpot state in the sequence of jackpot states increases from a minimum jackpot value corresponding to the initial jackpot state up to a maximum jackpot value corresponding to the final jackpot state (see above, the initial jackpot state (831) at 528 credits, the penultimate jackpot state (831) at 1760 credits and the final jackpot state (831) at 3344 credits as seen in Fig. 17, ¶ 76-78, Fig. 5, steps 525, 530, 535 and descriptions thereof, Fig. 7, steps 730, 735, 740 and descriptions thereof).
Claim 13: Winata discloses selecting a first win distribution defined for the game, wherein the first win distribution prescribes the multiple jackpot states (¶ 54-55, the active prize totals are set prior to the multiple jackpot states).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughs (2023/0087870) in view of Cohn (US 2021/0366226).
Claim 4: Hughes teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting configuring the computing system to operate using a first jackpot state of the second set of jackpot states for the game with multiple jackpot states; performing, in response to selection of the user-selectable control, a third instance of the game while the computing system operates using the first jackpot state of the second set of jackpot states; determining, an outcome of the third instance of the game, wherein the outcome of the third instance of the game includes an outcome to change from the first jackpot state of the second set of jackpot states to a second jackpot state of the second set of jackpot states; outputting, on the display of the computing system, the outcome of the third instance of the game; configuring the computing system to operate using the second jackpot state of the second set of jackpot states for a fourth instance of the game; performing, in response to selection of the user-selectable control, the fourth instance of the game while the computing system operates using the second jackpot state of the second set of jackpot states; determining an outcome of the fourth instance of the game; and outputting, on the display of the computing system, the outcome of the fourth instance of the game. Hughes at least teaches that previous jackpots states can be use in one more instances/plays of the game and altered to another jackpot state in the one or more instances/plays of the game (¶ 25, 29, 28-39, 41-54) and that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 184). Furthermore, an analogous art of Cohn teaches configuring the computing system to operate using a first jackpot state (jackpot state 214 at 0 credits) of the second set of jackpot states (jackpots states 212, 214, 216, 218, 220) for the game with multiple jackpot states (Figs. 6a-c, ¶ 52-55); performing, in response to selection of the user-selectable control, a third instance of the game while the computing system operates using the first jackpot state of the second set of jackpot states; determining, an outcome of the third instance of the game, wherein the outcome of the third instance of the game includes an outcome to change from the first jackpot state of the second set of jackpot states to a second jackpot state (jackpot state 214 changes from 0 credits to 100 credit) of the second set of jackpot states; outputting, on the display of the computing system, the outcome of the third instance of the game (Figs. 7a-d, ¶ 56); configuring the computing system to operate using the second jackpot state of the second set of jackpot states for a fourth instance of the game; performing, in response to selection of the user-selectable control, the fourth instance of the game while the computing system operates using the second jackpot state of the second set of jackpot states; determining an outcome of the fourth instance of the game; and outputting, on the display of the computing system, the outcome of the fourth instance of the game (Figs. 8a-c, 9, ¶ 57-58, 60-65). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computing system of Hughes with the first/second state and multiple instances means of Cohn because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, providing an enhanced persistent feature game that allows for multiple opportunities to win a jackpot in which at least Hughes is intended (Hughes - see above, ¶ 65). Such a modification provides a new and improved level of game play (Cohn - ¶ 7, 116).
Claim(s) 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winata (US 2024/0395110) in view of Walker (US 2005/0029745).
Claim 7: Winata teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein a probability corresponding to the no effect on jackpot outcome is
p
x
n
, wherein a probability corresponding to the increment jackpot outcome is
p
i
n
, wherein a probability corresponding to the increment and award jackpot outcome is
p
t
n
, wherein
p
x
n
+
p
i
n
+
p
t
n
= 1, wherein n corresponds to a current jackpot state the computing system is configured to use. Winata at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 101), a need exist to ensure fairness within the game (¶ 5, 49); and the game consists of 3 exclusive events/outcomes pertaining to each jackpot state or current state in the game that consist of a no effect on jackpot outcome, an increment jackpot outcome (not awarding the jackpot), or an increment and award jackpot outcome (Fig. 5, steps 525, 530, 535 and descriptions thereof, Fig. 7, steps 730, 735, 740 and descriptions thereof) e.g. where there are only 3 possible outcomes for the jackpot states. Furthermore, an analogous art of Walker teaches it is known in the art to set the sum of probabilities of all possible outcomes in a game to 1 (¶ 65, Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computer system, particularly, the jackpot outcomes of Winata such that the probabilities of occurrences of the outcomes sum up to or equal 1 as taught by Walker to guarantee completeness and certainty within the game. Such a modification guarantees that a player can obtain outcomes tailored specifically for the game; thereby, promoting gameplay fairness.
Claim 8: Winata teaches wherein the computing system is configured such that a maximum jackpot value (Fig. 17, maximum jackpot state (831) at 3344 credits) is output in response to the increment and award jackpot outcome being achieved during an instance of the game while the computing system is configured to operate using the penultimate jackpot state (see above, the initial jackpot state (831) at 528 credits, the penultimate jackpot state (831) at 1760 credits and the final jackpot state (831) at 3344 credits as seen in Fig. 17, ¶ 76-78, see Fig. 5 Steps 530, 535, 540, Fig. 7 Steps 735, 740, 745).
Claim 9: Winata in view of Walker teaches wherein the computing system is configured such that the probability
p
i
n
for each instance of the game while the computing system is configured to operate using the penultimate jackpot state is zero because the penultimate jackpot state is the state prior to the final jackpot state e.g. the state where the next outcome corresponds to the increment and award jackpot outcome (see above). Winata in view of Walker teaches probability
p
i
n
representing the probability corresponding to incrementing the jackpot outcome and not awarding the jackpot, wherein the penultimate jackpot state is the state immediately prior to the final jackpot state, wherein the final jackpot state requires or only occurs when the penultimate jackpot state is incremented and the resulting jackpot being award (the increment and award jackpot outcome has to occur while using the penultimate jackpot state)(see above with respect to Claims 5 and 7) such teachings suggest that the probability
p
i
n
for each instance of the game while the computing system is configured to operate using the penultimate jackpot state is zero such that the increment and award jackpot outcome is guaranteed to occur (probability
p
t
n
).
However, assuming arguendo, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computer system of Winata in view of Walker such that the probability
p
i
n
for each instance of the game while the computing system is configured to operate using the penultimate jackpot state is zero because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of guaranteeing or ensuring that the game transitions from a penultimate jackpot to the final jackpot state in which Winata in view of Walker is intended (see above). Such a modification prevents unwanted outcomes from occurring ensuring that aspects of the game occur according to design.
Claim 10: Winata in view of Walker teaches wherein the computing system is configured such that a jackpot value corresponding to the initial jackpot state (s508) is never awarded (Fig. 5, ¶ 88).
Claim 11: Winata in view of Walker teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the probability
p
t
n
, = RTP / v, wherein v = a jackpot value corresponding to the current jackpot state the computing system is configured to use, and RTP = a return-to-player value selected for the game. Winata in view of Walker at least teaches providing the probability
p
t
n
(see above) and additionally, teaches establishing a return-to-player (RTP) via the computing system (Winata - ¶ 5, 23-24, 57). Furthermore, However, applicant fails to disclose that having the probability
p
t
n
, = RTP / v solves any stated problem, provides an advantage, or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the probability
p
t
n
, of Winata in view of Walker, or applicant’s invention, would perform the same function of establishing a probability of the increment and award jackpot outcome occurring, regardless of how it is defined. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Winata in view of Walker to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Winata in view of Walker.
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughs (2023/0087870) in view of Jayakumar (US 2013/0332781).
(The examiner notes that the selection of a virtual button according to the applicant’s specification is made via a hardware input such as contact with a display or use of a pointing device (¶ 96, 101, 103, 196) which is a hardware interrupt; therefore, the examiner, given it’s broadest reasonable interpretation, is interpretating any hardware interrupt that provides input to software as a software interrupt).
Claim 14: Hughes teaches the above, in addition to wherein providing the user-selectable control includes providing, at the computing system, a graphical user interface including a virtual button, wherein the method further comprises: executing, by a processor (¶ 85-87), respective selections of the virtual button to initiate each instance of the game (¶ 41, 48, 100, 107-108, 111-112 (icon displayed on a touch screen that activated via the user to initiate each instance of the game), ¶ 114-115) , but lacks explicitly suggesting providing, at the computing system, a software interrupt and executing, by a processor, the software interrupt in response to respective selections of the virtual button to initiate each instance of the game. Hughes teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the claimed invention (¶ 184) and the virtual button and/or graphical user interface corresponding to touch screen inputs (see above). Furthermore, an analogous art of Jayakumar teaches a computer system that includes a software interrupt and executing, by a processor, the software interrupt in response to respective selections of made on a touch screen (Fig. 1, ¶ 10-20, emphasis on ¶ 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computer system of Hughes with the software interrupt means of Jayakumar because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of providing input from a user to a software (gaming) application in which at least Hughes is intended (Hughes - see above, ¶ 28, 87-88, 137, 161). Such a modification allows the computer system to process input entries from the user to other components such as software applications (Jayakumar - ¶ 18).
Claim 15: Hughes teaches the above, in addition to wherein providing the user-selectable control includes providing a hardware button, circuitry connecting the hardware button to a processor (¶ 85-87), and the method further comprising: executing, by the processor, respective selections of the hardware button to initiate each instance of the game (¶ 41, 48, 100, 107-108, 111-112 (mechanical button and/or game play initiation button), 114-115) , but lacks explicitly suggesting providing, at the computing system, a software interrupt and executing, by a processor, the software interrupt in response to respective selections of the hardware button to initiate each instance of the game. Hughes teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the claimed invention (¶ 184) and the respective selections of the hardware button to initiate each instance of the game (see above). Furthermore, an analogous art of Jayakumar teaches a computer system that includes a software interrupt and executing, by a processor, the software interrupt in response to respective selections of a hardware button (Fig. 1, ¶ 10-20, emphasis on ¶ 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computer system of Hughes with the software interrupt means of Jayakumar because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of providing input from a user to a software (gaming) application in which at least Hughes is intended (Hughes - see above, ¶ 28, 87-88, 137, 161). Such a modification allows the computer system to process input entries from the user to other components such as software applications (Jayakumar - ¶ 18).
Claim 16: Hughes teaches the above, in addition to outputting, on the display, a graphical user interface (GUI), wherein providing the user-selectable control includes outputting a virtual button within the GUI, the virtual button corresponding to a particular area within the GUI; and executing, by a processor (¶ 85-87), respective selections of the virtual button to initiate each instance of the game (¶ 41, 48, 100, 107-108, 111-112 (icon displayed on a touch screen that activated via the user to initiate each instance of the game), ¶ 114-115), but lacks explicitly suggesting providing, at the computing system, a software interrupt and executing, by a processor, the software interrupt in response to respective selections of the virtual button to initiate each instance of the game. Hughes teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the claimed invention (¶ 184) and the virtual button and/or graphical user interface corresponding to touch screen inputs (see above). Furthermore, an analogous art of Jayakumar teaches a computer system that includes a software interrupt and executing, by a processor, the software interrupt in response to respective selections of made on a touch screen (Fig. 1, ¶ 10-20, emphasis on ¶ 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computer system of Hughes with the software interrupt means of Jayakumar because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of providing input from a user to a software (gaming) application in which at least Hughes is intended (Hughes - see above, ¶ 28, 87-88, 137, 161). Such a modification allows the computer system to process input entries from the user to other components such as software applications (Jayakumar - ¶ 18).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAMAR HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-6177. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 5:30pm.
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.
/TRAMAR HARPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights