DETAILED ACTION
This is a First Office Action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed on 05/08/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are examined below.
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 it recites the limitation “based one detecting at least one…” in lines 5-6 of the claim. Examiner suggests amending to recite “based on detecting at least one…” for clear and concise language. Claims 2-8 depend from claim 1 and are therefore objected to on the same grounds.
Claim 6 is objected to because it recites the limitation “a opening” in line 2 of the claim. Examiner suggests amending to recite “an opening” for clear and concise language. Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and is therefore objected to on the same grounds.
Claim 9 is objected to because it recites the limitation “based one detecting at least one…” in line 9 of the claim. Examiner suggests amending to recite “based on detecting at least one…” for clear and concise language. Claims 10-16 depend from claim 9 and are therefore objected to on the same grounds.
Claim 14 is objected to because it recites the limitation “a opening” in line 2 of the claim. Examiner suggests amending to recite “an opening” for clear and concise language. Claim 15 depends from claim 14 and is therefore objected to on the same grounds.
Claim 17 is objected to because it recites the limitation “based one detecting at least one…” in lines 9-10 of the claim. Examiner suggests amending to recite “based on detecting at least one…” for clear and concise language. Claims 17-20 depend from claim 17 and are therefore objected to on the same grounds.
Claim 19 is objected to because it recites the limitation “a opening” in line 6 of the claim. Examiner suggests amending to recite “an opening” for clear and concise language.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to “a computer-implemented method” (i.e. a process), claim 9 is directed to “a system” (i.e. a machine), and claim 17 is directed to “a computer program product” (i.e. a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: Yes.
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of determining game rules such as: “whether to increment current jackpot level,” “the first coinflip mechanic indicated incrementing of current jackpot level,” “whether to trigger a bonus game” and “the second coinflip mechanic indicated triggering of the bonus game” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion) which are “performed on a computer” (per MPEP 2106(III)(C) “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”).
The claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental process.” Independent claim 1, analyzed as the representative of the claimed subject matter, is reproduced below. The limitations determined to be abstract ideas are in italics. The additional elements recited at a high level of generality are shown in bold. The limitation(s) determined to be extra-solution activity are underlined.
Independent Representative Claim 1: A computer-implemented method comprising:
activating, by a processing device, a gameplay mechanic to spin a plurality of virtual reels displayed on a user interface;
displaying a result of the spin;
activating, by the processing device, a first coinflip mechanic based one detecting at least one wildcard symbol in the result of the spin to determine whether to increment current jackpot level;
altering, by the processing device, a display state of a jackpot level visual indicator based on determining that the first coinflip mechanic indicated incrementing of the current jackpot level;
activating, by the processing device, a second coinflip mechanic based one detecting the at least one wildcard symbol in the result of the spin to determine whether to trigger a bonus game, wherein the first coinflip mechanic and the second coinflip mechanic each has a different weighting function selected based on the current jackpot level; and
activating, by the processing device, the bonus game based on determining that the second coinflip mechanic indicated triggering of the bonus game.
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: Yes.
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “a processing device” from independent claim 1, and “a memory” and “a storage medium” from claim 9 and 17 are claimed, as these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering) and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed of determining game rules such as: “whether to increment current jackpot level,” “the first coinflip mechanic indicated incrementing of current jackpot level,” “whether to trigger a bonus game” and “the second coinflip mechanic indicated triggering of the bonus game” is not providing a practical application.
Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: No.
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a processing device” from independent claim 1, and “a memory” and “a storage medium” from claim 9 and 17 are claimed, and these are all generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements, Applicant’s specification discloses them in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a), which satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s additional elements are described in the following paragraphs of the instant application’s Specification:
“A processing device” is described as follows: “[0026] The programming can be processor executable instructions stored on a tangible memory, and the hardware can include the processing device 112 for executing those instructions. Thus, a system memory (e.g., memory 114) can store program instructions that when executed by the processing device 112 implement the manager, logic, and other functions described herein. Other components can also be utilized to include other features and functionality described in other examples herein. Further, aspects can be distributed between multiple processing devices and/or cloud computing based resources.”
“A memory” is described as follows: “[0026] system memory (e.g., memory 114) can store program instructions that when executed by the processing device 112.”
“A storage medium” is described as follows: “[0006] a computer program product includes a storage medium embodied with computer program instructions.”
This element is reasonably interpreted as a generic computer which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the claimed limitation of “device,” is reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more. Furthermore, the Applicant’s “weighting function” could be reasonably be practiced as abstract ideas in the form of “Mathematical concepts” such as mathematical algorithms, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, and calculations.
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Another relevant example would be: “Organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations” (i.e. Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: No.
In addition, dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 do are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to independent claims 1, 9, and 17.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 17-20 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims contain limitations that are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed limitation of “a storage medium” does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Claim 17 contains a computer readable medium which can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Examiner suggests amending the claims to specify that the computer readable medium is a non-transitory computer readable medium. The instant application’s Specification indicates that the “storage medium” could be non-transitory in ¶67.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christmas Uberuaga et al. (US 20200074791 A1; hereinafter Uberuaga) in view of Jason Pawloski and Steven Davis (US 20140349732 A1; hereinafter Pawloski).
Regarding claim 1, Uberuaga discloses a computer-implemented method comprising: activating, by a processing device (“a game controller comprising a processor and memory” recited in at least: Uberuaga paragraph [0009]), a gameplay mechanic to spin a plurality of virtual reels displayed on a user interface (“In response to the first input, the game controller spins one or more reels of a reel game” recited in at least: Uberuaga paragraph [0008]); displaying a result of the spin (“Spinning a plurality of reels, which are displayed on the GUI, such that each reel displays one or more symbols in response to the input from the GUI. The spinning plurality of reels are stopped to display a plurality of symbols” recited in at least: Uberuaga paragraph [0009]); activating, by the processing device, a first mechanic based one detecting at least one wildcard symbol in the result of the spin to determine whether to increment current jackpot level (“only one type of level trigger symbol is available for presentment per wagered spin. When a trigger symbol(s) lands at the reel stop, the corresponding level cumulative free games meter 408-412 will increment by one for every respective trigger symbol that landed” recited in at least: Uberuaga paragraph [0085]); altering, by the processing device, a display state of a jackpot level visual indicator based on determining that the first mechanic indicated incrementing of the current jackpot level ("when a trigger symbol lands, the animation and/or sound will highlight the presentation of the symbol. As shown in FIG. 4B, animation 416 will visualize selection of the corresponding meter level (sequentially from top to bottom), and the meter itself animates to show the incremented free games count” recited in at least: Uberuaga paragraph [0086]); activating, by the processing device, a second mechanic based one detecting the at least one wildcard symbol in the result of the spin to determine whether to trigger a bonus game, wherein the first mechanic and the second mechanic each has a different weighting function selected based on the current jackpot level (“one or more symbols or combination of symbols can trigger one or more bonus features, such as an alternative game, expanded functionality, etc. The bonus feature, as well as the symbols that trigger the bonus feature, may be linked with or independent of the cumulative free game trigger symbols” recited in at least: Uberuaga paragraph [0088]); and activating, by the processing device, the bonus game based on determining that the second mechanic indicated triggering of the bonus game (“UI outcome is for a bonus game, the UI system could update one or more bonus game play UI elements 310A-310N (e.g., symbols) for the bonus game play UI 308. In response to the updating the appropriate UI, the player may subsequently provide additional player inputs to initiate a subsequent game instance that progresses through the game processing pipeline” recited in at least: Uberuaga paragraph [0069]). However, Uberuaga doesn’t explicitly disclose that the first and second mechanic being a coinflip mechanic.
Pawloski teaches a coinflip game mechanic (“virtual coin 520 is flipped by virtual hand 522 as illustrated by one or more moving coin images 528 (see FIG. 5D). Referring to FIG. 5D, virtual coin 520 has landed on a heads outcome 530. Since the player selected heads and the virtual coin 520 landed on heads, the player may advance to a level 2 payout (e.g., level 2 game play). Message area 502 may state “CONGRATULATIONS! THE COIN LANDED ON HEADS! YOU ADVANCED TO LEVEL 2!”” recited in at least: Pawloski paragraph [0130]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the game system of Uberuaga to include a coinflip mechanic as taught by Pawloski for the added benefit of using a popular random generator to advance in a game.
Regarding claim 2, and similarly claim 10, Uberuaga in view of Pawloski teach the claimed matter as recited above, and Pawloski further teaches wherein the first coinflip mechanic comprises a first set of at least two different weighting functions that increase or decrease a probability of incrementing as the current jackpot level increases (“Virtual coin 520 has landed on head outcome 530. Since the player selected heads and the virtual coin 520 landed on heads, game play may increase one or more progressive jackpot by a specific amount (e.g., 10,000 Credits)” recited in at least: Pawloski paragraph [0140]).
Regarding claim 3, and similarly claim 11, Uberuaga in view of Pawloski teach the claimed matter as recited above, and Pawloski further teaches wherein the second coinflip mechanic comprises a second set of at least two different weighting functions that increase a probability of triggering the bonus game as the current jackpot level increases (“the second input and the second random number do equal a level up, then the method may increase a player level to level two (and/or any level—Level 3, Level 4, Level X, Level Y, etc.). The method may continue for Nth additional number of inputs and Nth additional number of random numbers” recited in at least: Pawloski paragraph [0167]).
Regarding claim 4, and similarly claim 12, Uberuaga in view of Pawloski teach the claimed matter as recited above, and Uberuaga further teaches wherein the display state of the jackpot level visual indicator changes from a static image to a dynamic image based on the current jackpot level increasing from a first level to a second level (“The particular animation can be selected to distinguish the corresponding triggered cumulative free games meter, including a color code (e.g. purple, blue, green, etc.), size of the symbol (including a dynamic or change in size), shape of the symbol (e.g. diamond or other geometric, symbol, graphic, etc.), a particular theme (e.g. wispy lines, appearance of water, flames, etc.), speed of movement, transparency of the animation, associated symbols (e.g., shapes, pictures, numbers, etc.), to name but a few” recited in at least: Uberuaga paragraph [0081]).
Regarding claim 5, and similarly claim 13, Uberuaga in view of Pawloski teach the claimed matter as recited above, and Pawloski further teaches wherein the static image comprises a pair of doors in a closed position and the dynamic image comprises the pair of doors in a partially opened position with a changing image intensity effect (“the player selects one or more selection objects (e.g., a door, a lane, a horse, a car, a character, etc.) to determine the independent outcome” recited in at least: Pawloski paragraph [0138]).
Regarding claim 8, and similarly claims 16 and 20 Uberuaga in view of Pawloski teach the claimed matter as recited above, and Uberuaga further teaches wherein the current jackpot level and a current jackpot value are saved for each wager amount of a player interacting with the user interface, a change in the wager amount to a previously played wager amount reverts to a previously saved state of the current jackpot level and a current jackpot value when the player last played at the previously played wager amount, and both the current jackpot level and the current jackpot value associated with the wager amount are reset upon the player winning the jackpot bonus game (“Additionally, a players eligibility to win a jackpot can vary based on a players bet level, for example, a player may be eligible to only win a Mini jackpot at the minimum bet level, a Mini and a Minor jackpot at a middle bet level, and a Major (e.g., Grand) jackpot at a maximum bet level. In some examples, a player may achieve a level of play that rewards the player with all or a portion of a jackpot. The amount of the jackpot may be determined by bet level and/or cumulative earnings during gameplay, which may include the player's wagered amount. Thus, in the event the player is provided with a jackpot payout, it may all or a portion of the player's wagered amount and/or the earnings accumulated during gameplay” recited in at least: Uberuaga paragraph [0090]).
Regarding claim 9, a system comprising: a memory comprising computer readable instructions; and a processing device for executing the computer readable instructions, the computer readable instructions controlling the processing device to perform operations comprising: steps similar in scope to the method recited in independent claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 17, a computer program product comprising a storage medium embodied with computer program instructions that when executed by a computer cause the computer to implement: steps similar in scope to the method recited in independent claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 18, Uberuaga in view of Pawloski teach the claimed matter as recited above, and Pawloski further teaches wherein the first coinflip mechanic comprises a first set of at least two different weighting functions that increase or decrease a probability of the incrementing the current jackpot level (Virtual coin 520 has landed on head outcome 530. Since the player selected heads and the virtual coin 520 landed on heads, game play may increase one or more progressive jackpot by a specific amount (e.g., 10,000 Credits)” recited in at least: Pawloski paragraph [0140]), and the second coinflip mechanic comprises a second set of at least two different weighting functions that increase a probability of triggering the bonus game as the current jackpot level increases (“the second input and the second random number do equal a level up, then the method may increase a player level to level two (and/or any level—Level 3, Level 4, Level X, Level Y, etc.). The method may continue for Nth additional number of inputs and Nth additional number of random numbers” recited in at least: Pawloski paragraph [0167]).
Claims 6-7, 14-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uberuaga in view of Pawloski in further view of The Binding of Isaac (by Edmund McCillen and Florian Himsl) as evidenced by Helkros YouTube Video (“What will happen if you destroy the mirror on downpour II on the other side?” April 24, 2021; found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2M9FKqq5gA; hereinafter The Binding of Isaac).
Regarding claim 6, and similarly claim 14, Uberuaga in view of Pawloski teach the claimed matter as recited above and Pawloski further teaches wherein a transition from the second level to a third level comprises a opening the pair of doors to reveal an animated character (“may select a first door 542, a second door 544, and/or a third door 545. The player selected second door 544 for Dirk (e.g., a person's image 540) to go into. Message area 502 may state “PICK A DOOR FOR DIRK TO GO INTO”. Confirmation message 524 may state “YOU SELECTED DOOR 2”. In various examples, there may be positive outcomes behind one or more objects (e.g., the doors, etc.). For example, a pot of gold (e.g., credits), an upgraded game play level (e.g., going from a first game level to a second game level—Dirk lives), etc. In various examples, there may be negative outcomes behind one or more objects (e.g., the doors, etc.)” recited in at least: Pawloski paragraph [0138]); however, they do not explicitly teach that the third level comprises a changing background with pulsating movement of the animated character.
The Binding of Isaac teaches a stylistic choice of changing the background with pulsating movement of the animated character as evidenced by the figures below taken from the game as played by Helkros on YouTube. In the first figure you can see the character with the changing background and the character has pulsing movement as it stands in the scene.
PNG
media_image1.png
961
1456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG 1A
PNG
media_image2.png
961
1462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
FIG 1B
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have included stylistic choices like the one taught in The Binding of Isaac into the mechanics of Uberuaga and Pawloski for the added benefit of having variety in the game to keep users entertained and immersed in the style of the game.
Regarding claim 7, and similarly claim 15, Uberuaga in view of Pawloski in further view of The Binding of Isaac teach the claimed matter as recited above, and The Binding of Isaac further teaches wherein a transition from the third level to a fourth level comprises a removal of color from the animated character, and the fourth level comprises a glowing region around the animated character. The Binding Isaac teaches a stylistic choice of removing the color from an animated character, and then giving them a glowing region around the character as evidenced by the figure below from the YouTube Video created by Helkros.
PNG
media_image3.png
966
1465
media_image3.png
Greyscale
FIG 2
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art to have used the stylistic choice of changing/removing a character’s color and adding a glow as taught by The Binding of Isaac into the mechanics of Uberuaga and Pawloski for the added benefit of showing progression in a video game that has levels so that a user can be more attentive of the floor they are currently have unlocked.
Regarding claim 19, Uberuaga in view of Pawloski teach the claimed matter as recited above and Pawloski further teach the display state of the jackpot level visual indicator changes from a static image to a dynamic image based on the current jackpot level increasing from a first level to a second level, the static image comprises a pair of doors in a closed position and the dynamic image comprises the pair of doors in a partially opened position with a changing image intensity effect (“the player selects one or more selection objects (e.g., a door, a lane, a horse, a car, a character, etc.) to determine the independent outcome” recited in at least: Pawloski paragraph [0138]), a transition from the second level to a third level comprises a opening the pair of doors to reveal an animated character (“may select a first door 542, a second door 544, and/or a third door 545. The player selected second door 544 for Dirk (e.g., a person's image 540) to go into. Message area 502 may state “PICK A DOOR FOR DIRK TO GO INTO”. Confirmation message 524 may state “YOU SELECTED DOOR 2”. In various examples, there may be positive outcomes behind one or more objects (e.g., the doors, etc.). For example, a pot of gold (e.g., credits), an upgraded game play level (e.g., going from a first game level to a second game level—Dirk lives), etc. In various examples, there may be negative outcomes behind one or more objects (e.g., the doors, etc.)” recited in at least: Pawloski paragraph [0138]); however, they do not explicitly teach that the third level comprises a changing background with pulsating movement of the animated character, and a transition from the third level to a fourth level comprises a removal of color from the animated character, and the fourth level comprises a glowing region around the animated character.
The Binding of Isaac teaches the third level comprises a changing background with pulsating movement of the animated character as evidenced by FIG 1A-B above taken from the game as played by Helkros on YouTube. In the first figure you can see the character with the changing background and the character has pulsing movement as it stands in the scene, and a transition from the third level to a fourth level comprises a removal of color from the animated character, and the fourth level comprises a glowing region around the animated character The Binding of Isaac teaches a stylistic choice of removing the color from an animated character, and then giving them a glowing region around the character as evidenced by FIG 2 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SELWA A ALSOMAIRY whose telephone number is (703)756-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM to 5PM EST.
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.
/SELWA A ALSOMAIRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/PETER S VASAT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715