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 1-17 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.
Claims 1-17 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process that can be performed by a human being, a method of organizing human activity and/or the rules of a game.
In regard to Claims 1, 16, and 17, the following limitations can be performed as a mental process by a human being in terms of claiming collecting data, analyzing that data, and providing outputs based on that analysis which has been held by the CAFC to be an abstract idea in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential); and/or claim the rules of a game which has been identified by the CAFC as being an abstract ides in decisions such as, e.g., Savvy Dog Systems v. Pennsylvania Coin (non-precedential; 2023-1073; 3/21/24), in terms of the Applicant claiming:
[a] method of [playing] a gam[e], the method comprising:
[…]
presenting [a visual display of] primary-game reels that form a primary-game array for a primary game, the primary-game reels bearing a plurality of primary-game symbols and a plurality of special symbols;
conducting […] the primary game, wherein the primary game includes operations that comprise:
conducting […] via [an algorithm], [a visual display of] one or more primary-game spins of the primary-game reels for the primary game, each primary-game spin including spinning and stopping the primary-game reels to land, in the primary-game array, a first set of symbols from the plurality of primary-game symbols and a second set of symbols from a plurality of special symbols;
determining […] via the [algorithm] during the one or more primary-game spins, a random trigger to present [a visual display of] play of a secondary game using a secondary-game array, wherein the secondary-game array comprises a plurality of portions within which a secondary determination event can occur during the secondary game, wherein each one of the plurality of portions corresponds to at least a respective one of the primary-game reels according to a positional correlation; and
conducting […] in response to determining the random trigger, the secondary game, wherein for each [visual display of a] spin of the secondary game, […] perform[ing] additional operations that comprise:
animating […] based on the [algorithm], occurrence of the secondary determination event in at least one of the plurality of portions of the secondary-game array; and
in response to animating the occurrence of the secondary determination event, enhancing [the visual display of] at least one of the second set of symbols on the at least a respective one of the primary-game reels based on the positional correlation.
In regard to the dependent claims, they also claim an abstract idea to the extent that they merely claim further limitations that likewise could be performed as a mental process by a human being and/or claim the rules of a game.
Furthermore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because to the extent that additional elements are claimed either alone or in combination such as, e.g., receiving a physical item as a bet on a game, an electronic gaming machine comprising a value input device, employing a random number generator, a presentation assembly, and game logic circuitry programmed to execute Applicant’s abstract idea as an abstract idea which is stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium, these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering), to embody the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In this regard, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) in regard to “courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application…”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that taken individually, and also taken as an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g., receiving a physical item as a bet on a game, an electronic gaming machine comprising a value input device, employing a random number generator, a presentation assembly, and game logic circuitry programmed to execute Applicant’s abstract idea as an abstract idea which is stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium, these are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements and are claimed for the well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of collecting and processing data and/or providing an analysis/outputs based on that processing. To the extent that an apparatus is claimed as an additional element said apparatus fails to qualify as a “particular machine” to the extent that it is claimed generally, merely implements the steps of Applicant’s claimed method, and is claimed merely for purposes of extra-solution activity or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(b). As evidence that these additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, Applicant’s specification discloses the support for these elements 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). See, e.g., F1-2 Applicant’s PGPUB and text regarding same; e.g., p24 in regard to a value input device, and p28 regarding a random number generator.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is listed in the attached PTO-Form 892 and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715