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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 pass step 1 of the test for eligibility.
As per step 2A prong one, the claims are evaluated to determine whether the claims recite a judicial exception. Representative claim 1 recites, with emphasis added:
displaying, on an electronic display device, a plurality of symbol-bearing reels, the symbols borne by the symbol-bearing reels comprising basic symbols, trigger symbols and portable symbols; and
generating, by game-logic circuitry using a random number generator, a bonus game comprising a series of free spin outcomes, each spin outcome comprising:
spinning and stopping the plurality of symbol-bearing reels to populate a first array and a second array with landed symbols from the stopped reels;
in response to a triggering event: designating a position in the first array as a sending portal and designating a position in the second array as a receiving portal; and
in response to one of the series of free spin outcomes comprising a portable symbol landing in the sending portal:
animating, on the electronic display device, moving a copy of the landed portable symbol from the sending portal to the receiving portal; and
modifying an aspect of the portable symbol in the receiving portal
The above underlined portion of representative claim 1 recites a judicial exception because they are certain methods of organizing human activity, as they are following rules or instructions, as the invention is directed towards rules for conducting a wagering game.
Next, as per step 2A prong two, the claims are evaluated to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
The elements recited above that are not underlined in representative claim 1 comprise the additional elements. As discussed in more detail below, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Displaying on an electronic device, and animating movement of a symbol is/are extra-solution activity as these extra solution activities are insignificant data gathering and data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Generating by game logic circuitry using a random number generator is/are not an integration into a practical application as it is mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Next, as per step 2B, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception.
Displaying on an electronic device, and animating movement of a symbol is/are extra-solution activity as these extra solution activities are well known data gathering and data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), thus they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Generating by game logic circuitry using a random number generator does not amount to significantly more as it is mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The dependent claims of 2-10, and 12-20 are further rejected under 101 for the reasons described above as they simply further define the abstract idea (which makes the abstract idea no less abstract) without adding significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) and do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Further, taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
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 Berman (US 11232682) in view of Anderson (US 20110105218).
In claims 1 and 11, Berman discloses
Displaying, on an electronic display device, a plurality of symbol bearing reels, the symbols borne by the symbol bearing reels comprising basic symbols, trigger symbols, and portable symbols and (figure 2A, any of the symbols may be interpreted as “basic” “Trigger” or “portable”, however the most common basic symbol would be “7”, trigger would be “scatter” and portable would be “wild”, column 5 lines 22-50)
Generating, by game logic circuitry using a random number generator, (fig 6 #640, 602)
Spinning and stopping the plurality of symbol bearing reels to populate a first array and a second array with landed symbols from the stopped reels (figure 2A #250 “spin”, column 2 lines 59-67, column 3 lines 1-13)
designate a position in the first array as a sending portal and designating a position in the second array as a receiving portal and (column 6 lines 55-65. The first grid is the sending portal with the positions in the second grid being the receiving portal)
In response to one of the outcomes comprising a portable symbol landing in the sending portal: Animating, on the electronic display device, moving a copy of the landed portable symbol from the sending portal to the receiving portal and Modifying an aspect of the portable symbol in the receiving portal (column 5 lines 64-67, column 6 lines 1-14)
Berman fails to disclose a bonus game comprising a series of free spin outcomes, and that the sending and receiving portals are created in response to a triggering event, however Anderson discloses a bonus game comprising a series of free spin outcomes (paragraph 69) and a triggering event to create a sending and receiving portal (paragraph 92.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Berman with Anderson in order to allow for the copying to occur more rarely to increase excitement.
In claims 2 and 12, Berman discloses the portable symbols comprise value bearing symbols (column 6 lines 64-67, column 7 lines 1-12)
In claims 4 and 14, Berman discloses the value bearing symbols bear respective multiplier amounts (column 6 lines 64-67, column 7 lines 1-12)
In claims 5 and 15, Berman discloses the value bearing symbols comprise wild symbols (column 6 lines 64-67, column 7 lines 1-12)
In claims 6 and 16, Berman discloses the modified aspect comprises the value borne by the portable symbol the receiving portal (column 6 lines 64-67, column 7 lines 1-12)
In claims 7 and 17, Berman discloses the portable symbol comprise value bearing symbols and the modifying step comprises applying a multiplier to the value borne by the portable symbol in the receiving portal (column 6 lines 64-67, column 7 lines 1-12)
In claims 8 and 18, Berman discloses the portable symbol comprise value bearing symbols, and wherein in response to the second in the series of free spin outcomes comprising a portable symbol landing in both the sending portal and in the receiving portal, replacing the value borne by the portable symbol hat landed in the receiving portal with the sum of the value of the portable symbol that landed in the sending portal and the value of the portable symbol hat landed in the receiving portal (column 6 lines 64-67, column 7 lines 1-12)
In claims 9 and 19, Anderson discloses the triggering event comprises the first in the series of free spin outcomes comprising a trigger symbol landing in the first array (paragraph 69, 92)
In claims 10 and 20, Berman discloses detecting via at least one or more electronic input devices, a physical item associated with a monetary value that establishes a credit balance and receiving via at least one of the one or more electronic input devices, a cashout input that initiates a payout from the credit balance (figure 6 #646, 644)
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berman in view of Anderson in view of Pariseau (US 20200111291)
In claims 3 and 13, Berman in view of Anderson discloses the claimed invention except that the value bearing symbols bear respective credit amounts, however Pariseau discloses the value bearing symbols bear respective credit amounts (figure 3B, figure 19, 20, abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Berman in view of Anderson with Pariseau in order to make the awards available to the user clearer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS HAYNES HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-3905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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.
/THOMAS H HENRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715