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.
3. Claims 1, 5, 7-9, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. §101. The Supreme Court has held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, the application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293–94 (2012). In Mayo, the Court stated that “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.’” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citation omitted).
In Alice, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination”’ to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’‒ i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “‘[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,’ was not ‘enough’ [in Mayo] to supply an ‘inventive concept.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
Examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claims 1, 5, 7-9, 15-17, and 19-20 are directed to machines and computer readable media fall into the four statutory categories. However, claims that fall within one of the four subject matter categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas. See Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 309 (1980).
In Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is ‘directed to’ a judicially recognized exception. According to the specification, the disclosure “relates to gaming systems and methods that are configured to independently generate, display, and provide symbol specific features in association with activators during plays of a game” (paragraph 13). The specification also recognizes that “Gaming machines may provide players awards in plays of primary games. Gaming machines may require the player to place a wager to activate the play of a primary game. The award may be based on the player obtaining a winning symbol or symbol combination and on the amount of the wager” (paragraph 2).
Representative claim 1 recites the following (with emphasis):
“A gaming system comprising:
a housing comprising an access door;
a security monitoring circuit supported by the housing, that monitors the access door, and that causes a signal to be sent to a remote server when the access door is opened;
a plurality of output devices comprising a display device supported by the housing;
a plurality of input devices comprising: a touch screen input device supported by the housing and operable with the display device, an acceptor supported by the housing, a player tracking card reader supported by the housing, and a cash-out button supported by the housing;
a processor supported by the housing; and
a trusted memory device supported by the housing and configured to provide a gaming regulatory authority a root trusted authority that can be tracked and verified as original, the trusted memory device storing a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, via the display device, of a credit balance after the acceptor receives a physical currency or a physical ticket, and after the player tracking card reader reads a player identification from a player tracking device, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
cause a display, by the display device, of symbol displays comprising different symbols and different activators;
cause a display, by the display device, of a first symbol specific pot associated with a first symbol of the different symbols and associated with a first activator of the different activators;
cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of a first symbol specific feature associated with the first symbol specific pot and the first symbol, wherein the first symbol specific feature comprises transforming the first symbol into a third symbol besides a wild symbol or a bonus symbol;
cause a display, by the display device, of a second symbol specific pot associated with a second symbol of the different symbols and associated with a second activator of the different activators, wherein the first symbol and the second symbol are different symbols;
cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of a second symbol specific feature associated with the second symbol specific pot and the second symbol, wherein the second symbol specific feature comprises removing the second symbol from the symbol displays;
cause a display, by the display device, of a first quantity of activations of the symbol displays, wherein the display of the first quantity of activations of the symbol displays comprises the first activator of the different activators on one of the symbol displays and the second activator of the different activators on one of the symbol displays, wherein the first quantity is at least one;
cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of the first activator resulting in an activation of the first symbol specific pot associated with the first activator, and wherein said first activator not resulting in an activation of the first symbol specific pot associated with the first activator results in a display, by the display device, of an indication of a change to a first activator occurrence indicator associated with the first symbol specific pot;
cause a display, by the display device, of an indication that the first symbol specific feature associated with the first symbol specific pot is activated;
cause a display, of the display device, of an indication of the second activator resulting in an activation of the second symbol specific pot associated with the second activator, and wherein said second activator not resulting in an activation of the second symbol specific pot associated with the second activator results in a display, by the display device, of an indication of a change to a second activator occurrence indicator associated with the second symbol specific pot;
cause a display, by the display device, of an indication that the second symbol specific feature associated with the second first symbol specific pot is activated;
cause a display, of the display device, of an indication of use of the first symbol specific feature associated with the first symbol for a first subsequent activation of the symbol displays, wherein the first subsequent activation of the symbol displays comprises a first winning symbol combination that includes the first third symbol on the symbol displays; and cause a display, of the display device, of an indication of use of the second symbol specific feature associated with the second symbol for a second subsequent activation of the symbol displays, wherein the second subsequent activation of the symbol displays comprises a second winning symbol combination that does not includes the second symbol on the symbol displays.”
The underlined portions of representative claim 1 generally encompass the abstract idea, with substantially similar features in claims 9 and 17. It is clear that the inventive concept here is a set of rules for a game, which may provide one or more awards to a player. The dependent claims further define the abstract idea by introducing various rules to the game (e.g., certain symbols transform into other symbols or remove themselves from the reels when certain conditions are met, etc.). The abstract idea may be viewed, for example, as:
a method of exchanging financial obligations (e.g., an award-providing game, which is effectively a method of exchanging and resolving financial obligations based on probabilities created during the game) as discussed in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. 208 (2014), In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2018),
a fundamental economic practice (e.g., rules for conducting a game) as discussed in In re Smith, and In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V.,
a method of organizing human activities (e.g., allowing a human player to play an award-providing game according to rules of the game method) as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank.
The claimed abstract idea reproduced above is effectively a method of exchanging and resolving financial obligations between one or more players and an operator of the gaming machine based on probabilities created during the game (see Smith, Marco Guldenaar, and Alice). Based on the reasoning in Smith, and Marco Guldenaar, the recited steps of conducting a game in the instant claims relate to the “fundamental economic practice” of rules for conducting a game. Finally, the claims allow a player to win an award, which is a financial transaction based on the rules of the game (e.g., as determined by a random number generator). Such transactions are akin to the sort of organizing of human activities, i.e., risk hedging, discussed in Bilski (and shadow accounts in Alice).
Under prong 1, the above analysis demonstrates that the claimed invention encompasses an abstract idea in the form of mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity. Under prong 2, the instant claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely provide instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, add only extra solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. While certain physical elements (e.g., elements that are not an abstract idea such as a gaming machine) are present in the claims, such features do not effect an improvement in any technology or technical field and are recited in generic (i.e., not particular) ways. Similarly, the abstract idea does not improve the functioning of these physical elements. The claims do not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) are not applied with any particular machine (only generic gaming components), (3) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (4) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (e.g., a casino or similar environment under control of a jurisdiction which uses casino protocols), such that the claim, as a whole, is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims encompass the following additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se: an electronic gaming device comprising a memory and a processor to execute instructions to carry out the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
To the extent the claimed game machines are casino-type gaming machines, such as slot machines, the claimed features are generic, conventional, and well-known in the art of wager gaming and/or are devices and techniques that represent extra-solution activity.
For instance, US 6,142,872 to Walker et al. teaches that these elements are conventional:
“The slot server 200 and the slot machines 300-303, discussed further below in conjunction with FIGS. 2 and 3, respectively, may be embodied as conventional hardware and software, as modified herein to carry out the functions and operations described below. The slot server 200 and slot machines 300-303 transmit data between one another. The transmitted data may represent player names and corresponding identification numbers and team associations, credit balance amounts and play results. The slot server 200 and each of the slot machines 300-303 may communicate by means of cable or wireless links on which data signals can propagate” (6:53-64).
“In a per-spin embodiment, each player starts the representative slot machine 300 in a conventional manner by providing a form of payment, for example, by depositing one or more coins or bills in a coin/bill acceptor 355, or inserting a credit card, debit card or smart card into a card reader 364” (8:45-50).
“Each team player can cash out in a conventional manner by pushing a cash out button 370 on his or her respective slot machine 300-303. The CPU 310 then checks the RAM to see if the player has any credit and, if so, signals the hopper 354 to release an appropriate number of coins into a payout tray” (9:15-20).
Walker additionally teaches that “slot machines 300-303” may be embodied as “conventional hardware and software” shown in Figure 3, including three reels, a reel controller, a video display and a random number generator.
Additionally, US 2002/0187828 to Benbrahim teaches a gaming machine and a master gaming controller, and notes that permitting data to flow to and from the processor of a master gaming controller is “well known.” Benbrahim ¶ 29. Benbrahim further notes, “Many gaming devices, such as that illustrated, include a card reader 38 for reading information from a player card…This information may be used in a player tracking system, as is well known in the art.” Id. ¶ 24. Note that card reader 38 is disposed in the housing of the gaming machine in Fig. 1. Benbrahim also teaches the use of various versions of software code that is tailored to “the particular jurisdiction” in which the gaming device is to be operated. Id. ¶ 51.
US 2008/0026854 to Chen et al. describes a “conventional gaming machine” that may include a cabinet housing that supports a display, several input devices, a currency acceptor, and encloses the electrical components, such as a processor and random number generator, trusted memory devices to ensure authenticity of the software, a door having a lock for the cabinet to prevent unauthorized access along with doors being in communication with the controller to alert a user if the door is opened. See e.g., Chen ¶ 27, 31, 33, 42, and 43.
US 2010/0255902 to Goldstein et al. teaches a variety of security mechanisms, including tampering detection and prevention. Goldstein teaches that security monitoring circuits detect intrusion into a gaming device by monitoring security switches attached to access doors in the gaming device cabinet. See Goldstein ¶ 247. Preferably, access violations result in suspension of game play and can trigger additional security operations to preserve the current state of game play. Id. Moreover, Goldstein teaches that the gaming device may not advance from a first state to a second state until critical information that allows the first state to be reconstructed has been atomically stored, and after the state of the gaming device is restored during the play of a game of chance, game play may resume and the game may be completed. Id. at ¶ 242.
US 2021/0312756 to Penacho et al. teaches selecting reel strips for spins on a ribbon wheel, where the linked reel strip mechanism can be used to select reel strips for spins of other types of reels, such as a re-spin series that uses linked reel strips. See Penacho ¶ 184. The Penacho reference also recognizes that weighted tables (or lookup tables) can be used to satisfy regulatory requirements for randomness and RTP. Id. at ¶ 61. While these elements are considered to be part of the abstract idea as identified hereinabove, to the extent that these features might be considered as additional elements, they could not be seen as improvements to the underlying technology because they are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art.
Furthermore, the specification admits that “A “gaming system” as used herein refers to various configurations of: (a) one or more servers; (b) one or more electronic gaming machines such as those located on a casino floor; and/or (c) one or more personal gaming devices.” (paragraph 127). As such, a generic mobile device or conventional mobile phone would be capable of meeting the substantive limitations of the claims, as well as other generic computer devices such as laptops and desktops.
In light of these factual findings, the additional claim features discussed above are well-understood, routine, and conventional and/or constitute extra-solution activities.
Taking the claimed elements individually yields no difference from taking them in combination because each element simply performs its respective function as discussed above. The claims do not purport to improve the functioning of a computer itself, nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the additional features merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic, functional, and conventional components well-known in the art. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 1, 5, 7-9, 15-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leggett et al (US Patent No. 20240304062) in view of Nelson et al (US Patent No. 20130196755), Berman (US Patent No. 20070232382), and Chan (US Patent No. 20100062829).
Regarding claim 1, Leggett et al, henceforth Leggett, discloses “a gaming system comprising: a housing comprising an access door (see paragraph 21, “The cabinet 12 includes […] one or more front doors that are locked and require a physical or electronic key to gain access to the interior compartment of the cabinet 12 behind the locked door”); […] a plurality of output devices comprising a display device supported by the housing (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 22, “The primary presentation device 18 or the secondary presentation device 20 may be a mechanical-reel display device, a video display device, or a combination thereof”); a plurality of input devices comprising: a touch screen input device supported by the housing and operable with the display device, an acceptor supported by the housing, a player tracking card reader supported by the housing, and a cash out button supported by the housing (see paragraphs 24. “The gaming machine 10 may include a touch screen(s) 24 mounted over the primary or secondary presentation devices, buttons 26 on a button panel, a bill/ticket acceptor 28, a card reader/writer 30, a ticket dispenser 32” and 26, “ In response to a cashout input that initiates a payout from the credit balance on the “credits” meter 200 (see FIG. 4), the value output devices are used to dispense cash or credits from the gaming machine 10”); a processor supported by the housing (see paragraph 27, “The CPU 42 includes any suitable processor(s)”); and a trusted memory device supported by the housing and configured to provide a regulatory gaming authority a root trusted authority that can be tracked and verified as original (see paragraph 30, “In general, the main memory 44 stores programming for a random number generator (RNG), game-outcome logic, and game assets (e.g., art, sound, etc.)—all of which obtained regulatory approval from a gaming control board or commission and are verified by a trusted authentication program in the main memory 44 prior to game execution”), the trusted memory device storing a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, via the display device, of a credit balance after the acceptor receives a physical currency or a physical ticket, and after the player tracking card read reads a player identification from a player tracking device (see Fig. 4), wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
cause a display, by the display device, of symbol displays (see Figs. 4 and 6A-6C and paragraph 38, lines 2-6, “the game-logic circuitry controls one or more presentation devices (e.g., mechanical-reel display device, video display device, or a combination thereof) to present a plurality of symbol-bearing reels […]”) comprising different symbols and different activators (see Fig. 4 and paragraph 39, lines 4-7, “The reels bear a plurality of symbols that may, for example, include royal symbols 10, J, Q, K, and A; a wild symbol W that can substitute for any of the royal symbols; and generic coin symbols C1, C2, C3”: the “coin symbols” are analogous to the activators of the claimed invention; see also Figs. 6A-6C, paragraph 60, lines 1-2, “In the example embodiment, the reel strips (or sets of available symbols) include feature-triggering symbols”);
cause a display, by the display device, of a first symbol specific pot associated with a first symbol of the different symbols and associated with a first activator of the different activators (see Figs. 4 and 6A-6C and paragraph 38, lines 2-8, “the game-logic circuitry controls one or more presentation devices (e.g., mechanical-reel display device, video display device, or a combination thereof) to present […] a feature-triggering perceived persistent element (e.g., one or more coin pots)”; see also paragraph 60, lines 9-10, “Each feature-triggering symbol is associated with one or more persistent game elements (e.g., pots) presented by the presentation assembly)”);
cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of a first symbol specific feature associated with the first symbol specific pot and the first symbol (see Figs. 6A-6C and paragraph 74, lines 1-2 “The persistent elements 412, 414, and 416 are configured to be associated with respective trigger events” and 6-8, “The persistent elements 412, 414, and 416 include a dynamic presentation and feature indicia”);
cause a display, by the display device, of a second symbol specific pot associated with a second symbol of the different symbols and associated with a second activator of the different activators (see Figs. 4 and 6A-6C and paragraph 38, lines 2-8, “the game-logic circuitry controls one or more presentation devices (e.g., mechanical-reel display device, video display device, or a combination thereof) to present […] a feature-triggering perceived persistent element (e.g., one or more coin pots)”; see also paragraph 60, lines 9-10, “Each feature-triggering symbol is associated with one or more persistent game elements (e.g., pots) presented by the presentation assembly)”), wherein the first symbol and the second symbol are different symbols (see Fig. 4: the feature-triggering symbols “C1” and “C2” are different symbols);
cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of a second symbol specific feature associated with the second symbol specific pot and the second symbol (see Figs. 6A-6C and paragraph 74, lines 1-2 “The persistent elements 412, 414, and 416 are configured to be associated with respective trigger events” and 6-8, “The persistent elements 412, 414, and 416 include a dynamic presentation and feature indicia”);
cause a display, by the display device, of a first quantity of activations of the symbol displays (see Fig. 4 or Fig. 6), wherein the display of the first quantity of activations of the symbol displays comprises the first activator of the different activators on one of the symbol displays (the coin symbol C1 in Fig. 4, or the rhombus “first trigger symbol” 418 in Fig. 6A) and the second activator of the different activators on one of the symbol displays (the coin symbol C2 in Fig. 4, or the “second trigger symbol” 422 in Fig. 6A), wherein the first quantity is at least one;
cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of the first activator resulting in an activation of the first symbol specific pot associated with the first activator (see paragraph 47, lines 10-12, “when the bonus or game feature associated with a pot is triggered, at least some of the contents of the pot are visually removed”), and wherein said first activator not resulting in an activation of the first symbol specific pot associated with the first activator results in a display, by the display device, of an indication of a change to a first activator occurrence indicator associated with the first symbol specific pot (see paragraph 46, lines 7-15, “At step 114, the game-logic circuitry animates the addition of each coin symbol C1, C2 or C3 to a persistent element such as a coin pot (FIG. 4; 212, 214, 216) associated with the respective coin symbol C1, C2 or C3. For example, the coin symbol C2 in the center column of FIG. 4 may be animated to “fly” off the array and land in the middle of its associated coin pot 212. To represent the addition of the coin symbol to the coin pot, the pot and/or the volume of coins therein may appear to grow in size”; see also Figs. 6B-6C and paragraph 82, lines 1-6, “In the example embodiment, the third outcome state was selected for the trigger event associated with the third trigger symbol 422. In the example embodiment, the third outcome state is not associated with an award or game modification, but instead results in a visual change to the third persistent element 416”);
cause a display, by the display device, of an indication that the first feature associated with the first symbol specific pot is activated (see Fig. 6C and paragraph 80, lines 9-15, “the set of available outcome states for a given trigger event includes at least three states: a first outcome state associated with the award of the value-bearing trigger symbol, a second outcome state associated with a feature game modification, and a third outcome state associated with a visual update to the corresponding persistent element”, paragraph 85, lines 1-5, “In the example embodiment, the second outcome state was selected for the trigger event associated with the second trigger symbol 420. In response to any trigger events resulting in a second outcome state selection, a feature game is triggered”, and paragraph 90, lines 1-3, “Within the feature game, the interface 400 further includes a spin counter 428 that visually indicates the remaining duration of the feature game”);
cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of the second activator resulting in an activation of the second symbol specific pot associated with the second activator (see paragraph 47, lines 10-12, “when the bonus or game feature associated with a pot is triggered, at least some of the contents of the pot are visually removed”), and wherein said second activator not resulting in an activation of the second symbol specific pot associated with the second activator results in a display, by the display device, of an indication of a change to a second activator occurrence indicator associated with the second symbol specific pot (see paragraph 46, lines 7-15, “At step 114, the game-logic circuitry animates the addition of each coin symbol C1, C2 or C3 to a persistent element such as a coin pot (FIG. 4; 212, 214, 216) associated with the respective coin symbol C1, C2 or C3. For example, the coin symbol C2 in the center column of FIG. 4 may be animated to “fly” off the array and land in the middle of its associated coin pot 212. To represent the addition of the coin symbol to the coin pot, the pot and/or the volume of coins therein may appear to grow in size”; see also Figs. 6B-6C and paragraph 82, lines 1-6, “In the example embodiment, the third outcome state was selected for the trigger event associated with the third trigger symbol 422. In the example embodiment, the third outcome state is not associated with an award or game modification, but instead results in a visual change to the third persistent element 416”);
cause a display, by the display device, of an indication that the second feature associated with the second symbol specific pot is activated (see Fig. 6C and paragraph 80, lines 9-15, “the set of available outcome states for a given trigger event includes at least three states: a first outcome state associated with the award of the value-bearing trigger symbol, a second outcome state associated with a feature game modification, and a third outcome state associated with a visual update to the corresponding persistent element”, paragraph 85, lines 1-5, “In the example embodiment, the second outcome state was selected for the trigger event associated with the second trigger symbol 420. In response to any trigger events resulting in a second outcome state selection, a feature game is triggered”, and paragraph 90, lines 1-3, “Within the feature game, the interface 400 further includes a spin counter 428 that visually indicates the remaining duration of the feature game”).”
However, Leggett does not disclose “a security monitoring circuit supported by the housing, that monitors the access door, and that causes a signal to be sent to a remote server when the access door is opened.”
Nelson et al, henceforth Nelson, teaches a system that tracks information related to security events in a gaming environment that includes a plurality of gaming machines. Notably, Nelson’s system includes a remote security event tracking server which receives reports of potential security events from the plurality of gaming machines (see paragraph 8, “Such systems can include a plurality of gaming machines, a database adapted to store a plurality of informational files regarding security events, and a security event tracking server in communication with the plurality of gaming machines and the database”). In particular, Nelson teaches that “the security events can include, for example, an opened door”. Nelson also provides a motivation for including such a security system, noting that gaming establishments such as casinos “are a prime target for cheating, stealing and other questionable activities. As such, the use of surveillance systems and other security measures are prevalent in the gaming industry” (paragraph 3).
Therefore, 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 gaming machine of Leggett to include a security monitoring circuit that transmits security event date to a remote server when the circuit detects the gaming machine’s access door has been opened, as taught by Nelson, and they would have been motivated to do so to improve the security of the gaming machine and protect the owner from financial loss, as taught by Nelson, with reasonable expectation of success.
Leggett (in view of Nelson) is silent on whether “the first symbol specific feature comprises transforming the first symbol into a third symbol besides a wild symbol or a bonus symbol” and “the second symbol specific feature comprises removing the second symbol from the symbol displays.”
Berman teaches a gaming system where a payout is determined based on a winning combination of symbols displayed on a plurality of reels, similarly to that of Leggett and the claimed invention. Notably, Berman teaches the occurrence of “bonus events” analogous to Leggett’s “bonus games”, in which the symbols on the reels may be directly modified such that a symbol is transformed into a different symbol besides a wild or bonus symbol (see Fig. 2-A: multiple symbols on the reels in the standard mode have been transformed into star symbols in the bonus mode; see also paragraph 40, “Further, the symbols associated with any of the reel strips may change. For example, after each "spin" in the bonus mode one or more of the reel strips can change symbols, add symbols, remove symbols, etc.”) or the symbols may be removed from the reels altogether (see paragraph 40, “Further, the symbols associated with any of the reel strips may change. For example, after each "spin" in the bonus mode one or more of the reel strips can change symbols, add symbols, remove symbols, etc.”). Berman provides a general motivation for adding bonus game features (such as transforming symbols or removing symbols from the reel) in paragraph 4: “While true that a primary motivator for people to play gaming devices is the chance to win monetary or other prizes (in the case of legalized gambling), the intrigue and excitement of playing these newly created machines lures people as well. It is therefore important in the gaming industry that gaming innovations be rolled out to the participating public.”
Therefore, 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 gaming machine of Leggett (in view of Nelson) to include bonus game features where a symbol changes into a symbol besides a wild or bonus symbol and where a symbol is removed from the reels, as taught by Berman, and they would have been motivated to do so as “rolling out innovations” to the game, such as by adding new features, stimulates the players’ excitement, as taught by Berman, with reasonable expectation of success.
Finally, Leggett (in view of Nelson and Berman) does not disclose that the features associated with each pot are symbol-specific or the final two clauses of claim 1 (“cause a display, of the display device, of an indication of use of the first/second symbol specific feature associated with the first/second symbol for a first/second subsequent activation of the symbol displays, wherein the first/second subsequent activation of the symbol displays comprises a first/second winning symbol combination that (does not) include(s) the third/second symbol on the symbol displays”). It should be noted that, although the features disclosed by Leggett et al are not symbol-specific, Leggett discloses that in the event that two features are simultaneously triggered, only one feature may be applied at a time (see paragraph 51, lines 11-16, “If multiple coin symbols are within the array (as shown in FIG. 4), multiple outcome states may be selected and applied. In certain embodiments, one outcome state is applied per game cycle. In such embodiments, any remaining selected outcome states are ignored or applied to other game cycles”), which is consistent with the distinction made between a “first subsequent activation” and “second subsequent activation” as being separate events in the final two clauses of claim 1.
Chan teaches the use of “award adjustors” in a video slot machine game, with “each award adjustor being associated with a corresponding symbol in a specified set of symbols” (paragraph 6), wherein the award received upon achieving a winning outcome that contains a symbol from the specified set of symbols is adjusted depending on the award adjustor associated with the symbol in the winning outcome (paragraph 8). Chan notes that the award adjustors may be either multiplicative (paragraph 65) or additive (paragraphs 66) and teaches the triggering of “features”, which may include a particular symbol being considered as a “wild” during the feature game (paragraph 52). Therefore, the addition of special “features” which modify only one particular symbol, including applying additive or multiplicative bonuses to player’s score upon achieving a winning combination containing that particular symbol and temporarily changing the game logic so that that particular symbol is treated as a “wild” symbol, was known in the art of video slot machine games before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the video slot machine game of Leggett (in view of Nelson and Berman) to include the symbol-specific features taught by Chan, with predictable results, as they could have combined the elements as claimed using known methods and would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, as both Leggett, Berman, and Chan are directed to video slot machine games, which, being implemented as digital programs on an electronic computer, could have been combined by simply modifying the code used to implement Leggett’s and Berman’s video slot machine game to call the programming code used to implement Chan’s symbol-specific features whenever one of Leggett’s “feature-triggering symbols” cause a feature game to be triggered. Each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, as Leggett’s and Berman’s video slot machine game would play identically as before and Chan’s symbol-specific features would be applied to modify the score identically to how they were used in the original invention, and the deterministic manner in which this programming code would be executed by a conventional electronic computer would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to trace/determine the exact outcome of combining Leggett’s and Berman’s and Chan’s programming code, and so the results of the combination would also have been predictable.
Regarding claim 5, Leggett et al (in view of Nelson, Berman, and Chan) discloses “the gaming system of claim 1, wherein the first subsequent activation of the symbol displays and the second subsequent activation of the symbol displays are a same activation of the symbol displays (see Leggett paragraph 68, lines 1-4, “In at least some embodiments, the actions associated with each trigger event (i.e., the actions selected at steps 308-312) may be at least partially combined together in response to detecting multiple trigger events”, and 19-22, “any selections of the second outcome state at step 310 may result in a single game feature incorporating the functions and/or modifications associated with each second outcome state selection”).”
Regarding claims 7-8, Leggett (in view of Nelson, Berman, and Chan) discloses “the gaming system of claim 1, wherein the first and second symbol specific pots are perceived/actual persistent symbol specific pots (see Leggett paragraph 74, lines 13-22, “The dynamic presentation may be used to visually convey a state of the corresponding persistent element in embodiments with persistence or to visually convey perceived persistence. That is, in persistent embodiments, changes to the visual appearance to the persistent element correspond to changes to underlying game parameters that influence subsequent random determinations, while perceived persistence makes the visual changes without impacting subsequent random game determinations”).”
Regarding claim 9, the claim is identical in scope to claim 1 aside from the second symbol-specific feature comprising “increasing a quantity of the second symbol on the reels”, and the second subsequent activation of the reels comprising “a second winning symbol combination that includes the second symbol on the reels due to the increased quantity of the second symbol on the reels.”
Leggett discloses “increasing a quantity of a […] symbol” in paragraph 53: “An enhancement may include, without limitation […] modification to symbol weights”. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “modification to symbol weights” would result in an increased quantity of a symbol whose weight has been increased. Therefore, the combination of Leggett, Nelson, Berman, and Chan is considered to be anticipatory of the limitations in claim 9, using the same reasoning as applied to claim 1 (e.g., Chan’s teaching of “symbol-specific” features, when combined with Leggett’s teaching of modifying symbol weights as a game enhancement feature, together teaches “increasing a quantity of a […] symbol” as a game enhancement feature triggered by that specific symbol).
Regarding claims 15-16, Leggett (in view of Nelson, Berman, and Chan) discloses “the gaming system of claim 9, wherein the first and second symbol specific pots are perceived/actual persistent symbol specific pots (see Leggett paragraph 74, lines 13-22, “The dynamic presentation may be used to visually convey a state of the corresponding persistent element in embodiments with persistence or to visually convey perceived persistence. That is, in persistent embodiments, changes to the visual appearance to the persistent element correspond to changes to underlying game parameters that influence subsequent random determinations, while perceived persistence makes the visual changes without impacting subsequent random game determinations”).”
Regarding claim 17, the claim is identical in scope to claim 1 aside from the first and second symbol specific features being applied to the same game cycle and an additional limitation of the first and second symbol specific features being the same type of feature, specifically “transforming each instance of the first/second symbol on the symbol displays into a third/fourth symbol besides a wild symbol or a bonus symbol.” This specific feature is taught by the combination of Leggett, Berman, and Chan, as discussed in the 103 rejection for claim 1, leaving only the question of whether the simultaneous activation of multiple symbol-specific features is also anticipated: as a matter of fact, Leggett describes both methods of resolving simultaneous feature activations, including the one described in claim 17 (see paragraph 68, lines 1-4, “In at least some embodiments, the actions associated with each trigger event (i.e., the actions selected at steps 308-312) may be at least partially combined together in response to detecting multiple trigger events”, and 19-22, “any selections of the second outcome state at step 310 may result in a single game feature incorporating the functions and/or modifications associated with each second outcome state selection”). Therefore, the combination of Leggett, Nelson, Berman, and Chan is considered to be anticipatory of the limitations in claim 17, using the same reasoning as applied to claims 1 and 9.
Regarding claim 18, Leggett (in view of Nelson, Berman, and Chan) discloses “the gaming system of claim 17, wherein the first and second symbols are different symbols (see Leggett Fig. 4, wherein the coin symbols C1 and C2 are different, and Figs. 6A-6C, where the feature-triggering symbols 418, 420, and 422 are all different).”
Regarding claims 19-20, Leggett et al (in view of Nelson, Berman, and Chan) discloses “the gaming system of claim 17, wherein the first and second symbol specific pots are perceived/actual persistent symbol specific pots (see Leggett paragraph 74, lines 13-22, “The dynamic presentation may be used to visually convey a state of the corresponding persistent element in embodiments with persistence or to visually convey perceived persistence. That is, in persistent embodiments, changes to the visual appearance to the persistent element correspond to changes to underlying game parameters that influence subsequent random determinations, while perceived persistence makes the visual changes without impacting subsequent random game determinations”).”
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed 07/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the arguments made against a 101 rejection for independent claims 1, 9, and 17, and all associated dependent claims, Applicant stated that the present application is directed to a physical gaming system specifically "configured to operate in certain manners that differentiate these systems from general purpose computer devices, i.e., certain personal gaming devices such as desktop computers and laptop computers." These "differentiating features" (described in paragraph 208-232 of the specification), Applicant argues, render the 101 rejection improper, because the these features effectively "integrate[] the judicial exception into a practical application," citing PTAB decisions such as Ex parte Fujisawa, Appeal 2018-003650, Appl. No 14/257,066, Tech. Center 3700 at 6 (PTAB February 26, 2019) and Ex parte Burghard, Appeal 2018-001861, Appl. No. 14/010,227, Tech. Center 3700 at 19 to 20 (PTAB November 22, 2019).
However, this electronic gaming machine configuration is but one embodiment contemplated by the specification, which makes numerous and repeated references to “personal gaming devices” as a suitable means for implementing the invention (see paragraph 127, “The present disclosure contemplates a variety of different gaming systems […] A “gaming system” as used herein refers to various configurations of: (a) one or more servers; (b) one or more electronic gaming machines such as those located on a casino floor; and/or (c) one or more personal gaming devices. Thus, in various embodiments, the gaming system of the present disclosure includes: (a) one or more electronic gaming machines in combination with one or more servers; (b) one or more personal gaming devices in combination with one or more servers”). In paragraphs 128-135, every mention of “EGM” is followed by “(or personal gaming device)”, clearly demonstrating that the specification regards these as being equally suitable for implementing the described functionality. This is also evidenced by paragraph 135, which clearly states “Although the below refers to EGMs, in various embodiments personal gaming devices (such as personal gaming device 2000c of Figure 4C) may include some or all of the below components”. Figs. 4A-4C depict a smartphone producing the exact same display output as the electronic gaming machines. Finally, the specification defines a “personal gaming device” as being any of a “smartphone, a tablet computer, a desktop computer, or a laptop computer” (see paragraph 198).
Taken together, this evidence makes it clear that the specification contemplates at least electronic gaming machines, smartphones, tablet computers, desktop computers, and laptop computers as all being capable of implementing the invention, which demonstrates that generic computing components are all that is necessary to implement the invention. Thus, the specific features of an electronic gaming machine recited in the amended claim 1 are not required by the disclosed invention, because other devices are equally suitable. As a result, these features are considered extra-solution activity, which the MPEP makes clear is insufficient to amount to an inventive concept, “particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional” (see MPEP § 2106.05(g); the fact that the EGM features recited in the amended claim 1 are well-understood or conventional is established in the 101 rejection for the amended claim).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections for claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are rendered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection due to the amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
7. 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 KENNETH HAROLD JOHANSSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 8:30 to 6:30.
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.
/K.H.J./
Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/WILLIAM H MCCULLOCH JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights