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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the word “first” in “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” should be omitted.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-20 are directed to an apparatus/system, meeting the requirements for Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding claim 1, and similarly for claims 9 and 17, the following italicized steps recite an abstract idea of the rules for playing a game:
1. A gaming system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
cause a display, by a 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;
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;
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;
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 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 includes the second symbol on the symbol displays.
The Federal Circuit determined in In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016) as being comparable to other “fundamental economic practices” found abstract by the Supreme Court, concluding that the claimed "method of conducting a wagering game" was “directed to an abstract idea". See also In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1161, 129 USPQ2d 1008, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018), wherein the patentee claimed a method of playing a dice game including placing wagers on whether certain die faces will appear face up. The Federal Circuit determined that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of "rules for playing games", which the court characterized as a certain method of organizing human activity.
Claims 1, 9, and 17, as drafted, describe a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations according to the rules for playing a wagering game, which is a certain method of organizing human activity.
Step 2A Prong II
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. According to 2019 PEG, a consideration indicative of integration into a practical application includes improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular application (a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components for filtering Internet content, as discussed in BASCOM Global Internet V. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Conversely, considerations not indicative of integration include adding words "apply it" (or equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)); adding insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Here, a processor, memory, plurality of instructions, and display are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than in name only) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Applicant's Specification does not disclose that the processor, memory, plurality of instructions, or display are directed to a technological solution to a technological problem that "overcome some sort of technical difficulty." citing ChargePoint, Inc. V. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 768 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Applicant's Specification never suggests that the processor is improved from a technical perspective, or that it would operate differently than it otherwise could but instead "the disclosed processor is merely a means for setting up and playing the game" where the game processor generates an electronic game display on a game terminal" (see ChargePoint, 920 F.3d at 768). Consequently, these devices are viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer or as a means to automate the steps. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions
including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Even when the limitations are viewed in combination, the additional elements in this claim do no more than automate the steps needed to be performed, using the one of more computer components as tools. While this type of automation is an improvement in a general sense as opposed to performance manually, there is no change to the computers and other technology that are recited in the claim as automating the abstract ideas, and thus this claim cannot improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int'l V. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC V. Latric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. V. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer's functionality). Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. Thus, claims 1, 9, and 17 lack the eligibility requirements of Step 2 Prong II.
Step 2B
According to the 2019 PEG, in addition to the considerations discussed in Step 2A, an additional consideration indicative of an inventive concept (aka "significantly more") is the addition of a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Conversely, an additional consideration not indicative of an inventive concept is simply appending well-understood, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo, April 20, 2018). Thus, the additional elements evaluated under Step 2A are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 do not recite not recite additional elements, individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the lack of a practical application, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B (see Savvy Dog Sys. V. Pa. Coin, LLC, 2023-1073 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 21, 2024), "[h]ere, all that remain are generic and conventional computer components (e.g., a gaming terminal and touch screen display) that are used in a routine and conventional way. 'If a claim's only "inventive concept" (emphasis in original) is the application of an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood techniques, the claim has not been transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea". Id. At 1290-91").
Further, under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Yet, these limitations do not recite extra-solution activity requiring review. Additionally, the combination of additional elements adds nothing that is not already present when considered individually where the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 1, and similarly claims 9 and 17, are ineligible.
Claims 2-8 inherit the same abstract idea as claim 1, claims 10-16 inherit the same abstract idea as claim 9, and claims 18-20 inherit the same abstract idea as claim 17.
Regarding claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20, all are directed towards more abstract rules for playing a game and as such cannot supply the practical application or inventive concept sufficient to transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leggett et al (U.S. Patent No. 20240304062) in view of Chan (U.S. Patent No. 20100062829).
Regarding claim 1, Leggett et al discloses a gaming system comprising a processor and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions (see Fig. 2 and paragraph 27, lines 5-7, “The game-logic circuitry 40 includes a central processing unit (CPU) connected to a main memory 44 that comprises one or more memory devices”) that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
cause a display, by a 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 pot 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 feature associated with the first pot (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 pot 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)”);
cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of a second feature associated with the second pot (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 first 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 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 et al 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 includes the first/second symbol on the symbol displays”). It should be noted that, although the features disclosed by Leggett et al are not symbol-specific, Leggett et al 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 et al 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 et al 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 et al’s video slot machine game to call the programming code used to implement Chan’s symbol-specific features whenever one of Leggett et al’s “feature-triggering symbols” cause a feature game to be triggered. Each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, as Leggett et al’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 method by which this programming code would be executed by a conventional electronic computer would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the exact outcome of combining Leggett et al’s and Chan’s programming code, and so the results of the combination would also have been predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Leggett et al (in view of Chan) discloses the gaming system of claim 1, wherein the first symbol and the second symbol 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), and wherein the first symbol specific feature and the second symbol specific feature are a same feature (see Chan, paragraphs 67-77, which describe an example series of plays of a game wherein the CAT and MOUSE symbols both provide a multiplicative bonus when appearing in a winning combination).
Regarding claim 3, Leggett et al (in view of Chan) discloses the gaming system of claim 1. Leggett et al also discloses the simultaneous activation of multiple features in the event that the “feature-triggering symbols” associated with those features appear and trigger their respective features simultaneously (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 lines 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, if two features were simultaneously active and were both capable of modifying the score, they would be simultaneously applied to any winning symbol combination that contains the symbols associated with those features and appears while both features are active, which, if the symbols associated with each feature were the same, would satisfy the additional limitations recited by claim 3 that the first and second winning symbol combinations are a same winning symbol combination and the total award amount for the first winning symbol combination is based on the initial award amount and both the first and second symbol specific features.
However, Leggett et al (in view of Chan) is silent on whether the first and second symbols are a same symbol and whether the first and second symbol specific features are different features.
Regardless, 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 Leggett et al (in view of Chan) so that the first and second symbols are the same symbol and the first and second symbol specific features are different features, with reasonable expectation of success, as this ruleset is one of only four possible permutations that could occur when combining Leggett et al and Chan: either the “feature-triggering symbols” are different and the features associated with the three pots are of different types, the “feature-triggering symbols” are different and the features associated with the three pots are the same type, the “feature-triggering symbols” are the same and the features associated with the three pots are of different types, or the “feature-triggering symbols” are the same and the features associated with the three pots are the same type; claim 3 merely describes the third permutation (claim 2 incidentally describes the second permutation). As these rulesets are minor variations of one another, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued an implementation of any of these four permutations with a reasonable expectation of success. It should also be noted that the idea of using different types of features for each pot would be immediately apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art as Leggett et al discloses different types of features for each pot in its exemplary embodiment (see Fig. 6A).
Regarding claim 4, Leggett et al (in view of Chan) discloses the gaming system of claim 1, wherein the first symbol and the second symbol 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).
However, Leggett et al (in view of Chan) is silent on whether the first and second symbol specific features are different features.
Regardless, 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 Leggett et al (in view of Chan) so that the first and second symbols are the same symbol and the first and second symbol specific features are different features, with reasonable expectation of success, as this ruleset is one of only four possible permutations that could occur when combining Leggett et al and Chan: either the “feature-triggering symbols” are different and the features associated with the three pots are of different types, the “feature-triggering symbols” are different and the features associated with the three pots are the same type, the “feature-triggering symbols” are the same and the features associated with the three pots are of different types, or the “feature-triggering symbols” are the same and the features associated with the three pots are the same type; claim 4 merely describes the first permutation. As these rulesets are minor variations of one another, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued an implementation of any of these four permutations with a reasonable expectation of success. It should also be noted that the idea of using different types of features for each pot would be immediately apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art as Leggett et al discloses different types of features for each pot in its exemplary embodiment (see Fig. 6A).
Regarding claim 5, Leggett et al (in view of 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 claim 6, which limits claim 1 by adding a third symbol-specific pot associated with a third symbol and a third symbol-specific feature, Leggett et al (in view of Chan) discloses all limitations of claim 6 as it already discloses three pots in its exemplary embodiment, in addition to all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claims 7-8, Leggett et al (in view of Chan) discloses the gaming system of claim 1, wherein the first and second symbol specific pots are perceived and 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, claim 9 is identical in scope to claim 1 aside from there being only one “first symbol” instead of both a first and second symbols and the recitation of an additional limitation of the second symbol specific feature being different than the first symbol specific feature. Accordingly, Leggett et al (in view of Chan) discloses all the limitations of claim 9 following the same reasoning as applied to claim 3. The examiner is aware that claim 3 and claim 9 are not identical in scope; however, the only difference between the two is whether different features that have been triggered simultaneously are applied simultaneously in the same game cycle or applied separately across multiple game cycles, and Leggett et al accounts for both variations (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” and 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 claim 10, Leggett et al (in view of Chan) discloses the gaming system of claim 9, wherein the first symbol specific feature and the second symbol specific feature are a same feature (see Chan, paragraphs 67-77, which describe an example series of plays of a game wherein the CAT and MOUSE symbols both provide a multiplicative bonus when appearing in a winning combination).
Regarding claim 11, Leggett et al (in view of Chan) discloses the gaming system of claim 9, wherein the first symbol specific feature and the second symbol specific feature are a same type of feature (see Chan, paragraphs 67-77, which describe an example series of plays of a game wherein the CAT and MOUSE symbols both provide a multiplicative bonus when appearing in a winning combination).
Regarding claim 12, Leggett et al (in view of Chan) discloses the gaming system of claim 9.
However, Leggett et al (in view of Chan) is silent on whether the first and second symbol specific features are different features.
Regardless, 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 Leggett et al (in view of Chan) so that the first and second symbol specific features are different features, with reasonable expectation of success, as this ruleset is one of only four possible permutations that could occur when combining Leggett et al and Chan: either the “feature-triggering symbols” are different and the features associated with the three pots are of different types, the “feature-triggering symbols” are different and the features associated with the three pots are the same type, the “feature-triggering symbols” are the same and the features associated with the three pots are of different types, or the “feature-triggering symbols” are the same and the features associated with the three pots are the same type; claim 12 merely describes the third permutation. As these rulesets are minor variations of one another, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued an implementation of any of these four permutations with a reasonable expectation of success. It should also be noted that the idea of using different types of features for each pot would be immediately apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art as Leggett et al discloses different types of features for each pot in its exemplary embodiment (see Fig. 6A).
Regarding claim 13, Leggett et al (in view of Chan) discloses the gaming system of claim 9.
However, Leggett et al (in view of Chan) is silent on whether the first and second symbol specific features are different types of features.
Regardless, 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 Leggett et al (in view of Chan) so that the first and second symbol specific features are different features, with reasonable expectation of success, as this ruleset is one of only four possible permutations that could occur when combining Leggett et al and Chan: either the “feature-triggering symbols” are different and the features associated with the three pots are of different types, the “feature-triggering symbols” are different and the features associated with the three pots are the same type, the “feature-triggering symbols” are the same and the features associated with the three pots are of different types, or the “feature-triggering symbols” are the same and the features associated with the three pots are the same type; claim 13 merely describes the third permutation. As these rulesets are minor variations of one another, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued an implementation of any of these four permutations with a reasonable expectation of success. It should also be noted that the idea of using different types of features for each pot would be immediately apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art as Leggett et al discloses different types of features for each pot in its exemplary embodiment (see Fig. 6A).
Regarding claim 14, Leggett et al (in view of Chan) discloses the gaming system of claim 9, 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 15-16, Leggett et al (in view of Chan) discloses the gaming system of claim 9, wherein the first and second symbol specific pots are perceived and 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, claim 17 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. As discussed before in the argumentation for claim 9, Leggett et al 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”). As for the additional limitation, Chan teaches the first and second symbol specific features being the same type of feature, as discussed in the argumentation for claim 2 (see Chan, paragraphs 67-77, which describe an example series of plays of a game wherein the CAT and MOUSE symbols both provide a multiplicative bonus when appearing in a winning combination).
Regarding claim 18, Leggett et al (in view of 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 Chan) discloses the gaming system of claim 17, wherein the first and second symbol specific pots are perceived and 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“).
Conclusion
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.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Vasat can be reached at (571)270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.H.J./
Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/PETER S VASAT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715