DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 and 15-20 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. As summarized in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions.
Step 1
In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The instant invention encompasses a gaming system in claims 1-12 and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium in claim 20 (i.e., machines), and a method in claims 15-19 (i.e., processes). So claims 1-20 is directed to one of the four statutory categories and meet the requirements of step 1.
Step 2A
Prong One
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Present invention is directed to “a processor and at least one memory to cause the gaming system to activate the dice shaker to generate a roll outcome, activate the gaming wheel using a movement characteristic based on the roll outcome, and determine a randomized outcome of the gaming wheel” ([0006]).
Claim 1. A gaming system, comprising:
a dice shaker configured to roll at least one die;
a gaming wheel comprising a face displaying a plurality of gaming outcomes;
a gaming apparatus in communication with the dice shaker and the gaming wheel; and
a processor and at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the processor, causes the gaming system to:
in response to player input received at the gaming apparatus, activate the dice shaker to roll the at least one die and generate a roll outcome;
activate the gaming wheel using a movement characteristic based on the roll outcome; and
determine a randomized outcome of the gaming wheel.
The bold and underlined portions of claim 1 encompass the abstract idea, which is also encompassed by dependent claims 2-12, and claims 15-20.
Claim 1 recites the steps and rules to activate a wagering game, which is fundamental economic principles or practices or commercial or legal interactions. Therefore, the claimed invention is grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity.
Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because mere instruction to implement on a computer or mobile device, or merely using a computer or mobile device as a tool to perform the abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use is not considered integration into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the present claim includes the additional elements other than the abstract idea which include a gaming system, comprising a dice shaker, a gaming wheel, a gaming apparatus in communication with the dice shaker and the gaming wheel; and a processor and at least one memory. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the dice shaker and the gaming wheel can be virtual dice shaker and virtual gaming wheel implemented by computer ([0024], “The virtual dice shaker 220 and virtual gaming wheel 230 may be displayed at various positions on the display topper 240, depending on the gaming event”). And the gaming apparatus is merely the interface of a conventional gaming machine to take player’s input. Mere computer-based implementation, without more, is not sufficient to render claims directed to patent-eligible subject matter. The addition of a gaming machine to carry out these routine steps and rules does not make the claim any less abstract. The claim is drafted in a result-oriented fashion, without the requisite specificity needed to provide a nonabstract technological solution. This gaming machine as presented is directed to the generic machines amount to merely field of use type limitations and/or extra solution activity to provide computer-based implementation to implement the steps and rules for players to activate the gaming wheel using a movement characteristic based on the roll outcome from a dice roll.
Step 2B
Step 2B in the analysis requires us to determine whether the claims do significantly more than simply describe that abstract method. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297. We must examine the limitations of the claims to determine whether the claims contain an "inventive concept" to "transform" the claimed abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 1298). The transformation of an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter "requires 'more than simply stat[ing] the [abstract idea] while adding the words 'apply it."' Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294) (alterations in original). "A claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features' to ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].'" Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297) (alterations in original). Those "additional features" must be more than "well-understood, routine, conventional activity." Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298.
The present claims include the additional elements other than the abstract idea which include a gaming system, comprising a dice shaker, a gaming wheel, a gaming apparatus in communication with the dice shaker and the gaming wheel; and a processor and at least one memory. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the dice shaker and the gaming wheel can be virtual dice shaker and virtual gaming wheel implemented by computer ([0024], “The virtual dice shaker 220 and virtual gaming wheel 230 may be displayed at various positions on the display topper 240, depending on the gaming event”). And the gaming apparatus is merely the interface of a conventional gaming machine to take player’s input. By failing to explain the details of the gaming system, it is reasonable that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the system is limited to a generic computer implementation with generic network connection. And gaming machines taking player’s input to initiate games, displaying one or more rotatable wheels, reels or dice, configured to display at least one or a plurality of games or other suitable images, symbols or indicia are conventional, well known in the industry (MUIR et al., [US20120244946 ], [0024], “In the exemplary embodiment, and as shown in FIG. 1, gaming machine 10 includes a support structure, housing, or cabinet 2 that provides support for a plurality of interface units, displays, inputs, controls and other features of a conventional gaming machine” and [0031], “interface unit 16 and/or 18 may include any electromechanical device, such as one or more mechanical objects, such as one or more rotatable wheels, reels or dice, configured to display at least one or a plurality of games or other suitable images, symbols or indicia”). The “generic computer implementation with generic network connection” are "well understood, routine, conventional activity." The computer implementation merely helps to automate the commercial or legal interactions during wager gaming playing using the applied advance of money or value. The claim fails to improve the recited technological field.
The claims are generally linked to implement an abstract idea on a computer. When looked at individually and as a whole, the claim limitations are determined to be an abstract idea without "significantly more", and thus not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-3, 6, 9-12 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaminkow et al. [US20040152498], hereinafter Kaminkow, in view of Pegram et al. [US20200402371], hereinafter Pegram.
Regarding claim 1, Kaminkow discloses a gaming system, comprising:
a dice shaker configured to roll at least one die (Fig. 1A, [0035], “the gaming device 10a includes a die shaker 98 ”);
a gaming wheel comprising a face displaying a plurality of gaming outcomes ([0038], “It should be appreciated that the display devices can display any visual representation or exhibition, including but not limited to movement of physical objects such as mechanical reels and wheels, mechanical die shakers, dynamic lighting and video images”);
a gaming apparatus in communication with the dice shaker and the gaming wheel (Fig. 1A); and
a processor and at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the processor, causes the gaming system to:
in response to player input received at the gaming apparatus, activate the dice shaker to roll the at least one die and generate a roll outcome ([0004], “This game begins when a player rolls a pair of dice. The dice are actually rolled by the gaming machine. Some machines have physical dice that roll down a slope or vibrate about until finally stopping on a number. Others utilize a video display that simulates the roll of the dice”);
activate gaming reels using a movement characteristic based on the roll outcome; and determine a randomized outcome of the gaming reels([0021], “In one embodiment, the die or dice functions in conjunction with one or more free spins or one or more nudges of the reels”).
However, Kaminkow does not explicitly disclose activating the gaming wheel based on the roll outcome.
Nevertheless, Pegram teaches in a like invention, activating the gaming wheel based on the roll outcome (abstract, “The primary game can involve virtual dice… A bonus game play can involve a wheel spin” and [0194], “At a following process step 1504, a bonus game can be activated after a qualifying outcome from another game, after which play of the bonus game can be facilitated at the next process step 1206. The qualifying outcome can be a result of the secondary game, the primary game, or both.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gaming system disclosed by Kaminkow, to have activating the gaming wheel based on the roll outcome, as taught by Pegram, in order to make it more fun to link the games together since the display devices can display any visual representation or exhibition, including but not limited to movement of physical objects such as mechanical reels and wheels.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kaminkow and Pegram discloses the gaming system of claim 1, wherein the at least one memory comprises instructions, which when executed by the processor, causes the system to apply a multiplier to a gaming event at the gaming apparatus, the multiplier corresponding to the randomized outcome associated with the gaming wheel (Kaminkow, [0014], “In an alternative embodiment, the value displayed on the die represents a modifier, such as a multiplier, which modifies the award, if any, the player obtained from the reels”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kaminkow and Pegram discloses the gaming system of claim 1, further comprising: a controller associated with the gaming apparatus, wherein the controller determines at least one of a timing and a force of the roll at the dice shaker (Kaminkow, [0049], “As illustrated in FIG. 4B, upon the initiation of the primary game and simultaneous with the reels spinning, the processor of the gaming device activates the activator 122 of the die shaker 98. The activated activator engages the actuator 120 causing the die 102 to be propelled into the upper portion of the die shaker container 100”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kaminkow and Pegram discloses the gaming system of claim 1, wherein the gaming wheel is a standard roulette wheel (Kaminkow, [0038], “It should be appreciated that the display devices can display any visual representation or exhibition, including but not limited to movement of physical objects such as mechanical reels and wheels, mechanical die shakers, dynamic lighting and video images”).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kaminkow and Pegram discloses the gaming system of claim 1, wherein the gaming apparatus further comprises a display displaying at least one of the roll outcome, and a gaming outcome (Kaminkow, Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kaminkow and Pegram discloses the gaming system of claim 1, wherein the gaming apparatus is an individual player machine comprising a base section supporting the dice shaker and the gaming wheel (Kaminkow, Figs. 1A – 1E).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kaminkow and Pegram discloses the gaming system of claim 1, wherein the dice shaker and the gaming wheel are virtual, and wherein the dice shaker and the gaming wheel are provided on a display associated with the gaming apparatus (Kaminkow, Figs. 1A – 1E, and [0038], “It should be appreciated that the display devices can display any visual representation or exhibition, including but not limited to movement of physical objects such as mechanical reels and wheels, mechanical die shakers, dynamic lighting and video images”).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kaminkow and Pegram discloses the gaming system of claim 1, wherein the gaming wheel comprises a plurality of pockets, and wherein each pocket is associated with a gaming outcome (Kaminkow, [0038], “It should be appreciated that the display devices can display any visual representation or exhibition, including but not limited to movement of physical objects such as mechanical reels and wheels, mechanical die shakers, dynamic lighting and video images”).
Regarding claims 15 and 20, please refer to the claim rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kaminkow and Pegram discloses the method of claim 15, wherein activating the dice shaker automatically occurs during the gaming event (Kaminkow, [0049], “As illustrated in FIG. 4B, upon the initiation of the primary game and simultaneous with the reels spinning, the processor of the gaming device activates the activator 122 of the die shaker 98. The activated activator engages the actuator 120 causing the die 102 to be propelled into the upper portion of the die shaker container 100”).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Kaminkow and Pegram discloses the method of claim 15, wherein activating the dice shaker occurs in response to receiving player input at the gaming apparatus (Kaminkow, [0015], “In another embodiment, the processor of the gaming device activates the die shaker to shake or actuate the die prior to the spinning of the reels.”).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Kaminkow and Pegram discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the player input is received via a controller associated with the gaming apparatus (Kaminkow, [0040], “As illustrated in FIG. 2, the general electronic configuration of gaming device 10 preferably includes: a processor 38; a memory device 40 for storing program code or other data; a sound card 42; a plurality of speakers 36; an activating member 122 for shaking the die; sensors 110 for determining the position of the die; and one or more input devices 44”).
Regarding claim 19, please refer to the claim rejection of claim 3.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaminkow, in view of Pegram, further in view of Mourad [US20090186688].
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kaminkow and Pegram discloses the gaming system of claim 3. However, the combination of Kaminkow and Pegram does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is a button.
Nevertheless, Mourad teaches the controller as a button to activate the dice shaker ([0021], “The dice shaker can be electrically or electronically operated by means of a dealer-operated button 32 (see FIG. 4)”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gaming system disclosed by the combination of Kaminkow and Pegram, to have activating the dice shaker using a button, as taught by Mourad, in order to make it easier for the players to operate.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaminkow, in view of Pegram, further in view of Assa [US20130244784].
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kaminkow and Pegram discloses the gaming system of claim 3. However, the combination of Kaminkow and Pegram does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller measures an activation force, and wherein the activation force determines the force of the roll.
Nevertheless, Assa teaches in a like invention, the controller measures an activation force, and wherein the activation force determines the force of the roll ([0083], “Then, when a user makes a motion as if to "spill" the dice onto the main board game 102 (this can be sensed using, e.g., an inclinometer embedded in the terminal), the personal terminal 104 transmits to the main board 102 a transfer command that may include an identification of the dice, its speed of role, the strength of the user's motion, etc, whereby the personal terminal 104 shows a graphic of the dice falling off, while the main board 102 uses the data transmitted from the terminal 104 to show graphics of the dice rolling onto the main board 102 at the appropriate force and direction”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gaming system disclosed by the combination of Kaminkow and Pegram, to have the controller measures an activation force, and wherein the activation force determines the force of the roll, as taught by Assa, in order to make the players feel they have the control over the dice rolling thus making the playing more fun.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaminkow, in view of Pegram, further in view of Acton et al. [US20170136344], hereinafter Acton.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kaminkow and Pegram discloses the gaming system of claim 6. However, the combination of Kaminkow and Pegram does not explicitly disclose wherein the standard roulette wheel spins at a constant speed to maintain randomness, and the constant speed corresponds to a roulette ball launch speed.
Nevertheless, Acton teaches the standard roulette wheel spins at a constant speed to maintain randomness, and the constant speed corresponds to a roulette ball launch speed ([0081], “In the illustrated embodiment the length of the two transport tubes 12 and 13 is the same and their geometries are a mirror images of one another so that the relationship between the speeds of rotation of the wheels 15 and 16 and the speed at which the roulette ball 100 is launched into the wheel bowl 9 is constant regardless of the direction in which the roulette ball 100 is launched”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gaming system disclosed by the combination of Kaminkow and Pegram, to have the wheel spins at a constant speed to maintain randomness, and the constant speed corresponds to a roulette ball launch speed, as taught by Acton, in order to make the players feel they have the access to the standard roulette wheel thus making the playing more fun.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kaminkow, Pegram and Acton discloses the gaming system of claim 7, wherein standard roulette wheel spins during a launch of the roulette ball, and at least until the roulette ball comes to rest (Acton, [0092], “The control system 5 then sends appropriate control signals to the drive motor 4 to spin the roulette wheel 2 in the selected direction. The direction and speed of spin of the roulette wheel 2 is kept constant throughout the game until the slot compartment 6 in which the roulette ball 100 comes to rest at the end of the game has been determined”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The examiner also wants to note, since claims 13 and 14 are directed to a species corresponding to Figs. 3 and 4 with physical dice shaker and roulette wheel, if they are rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim, claim 11, which is directed to another species corresponding to Fig. 2 with virtual dice shaker and roulette wheel, needs to be cancelled in order to prevent conflicting claim limitations with the independent claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YINGCHUAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1375. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 4:30 M-F.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/YINGCHUAN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715