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 1-20 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.
The claims are directed to presenting game items (organizing methods of human activity, e.g., fundamental economic principles and following game rules) involving:
presenting, by a presentation assembly, a meter, a base array, a plurality of symbol-bearing base reels and an associated accumulation symbol;
land symbols;
in response to the landed symbols including a first accumulation symbol: animating an addition of the first accumulation symbol to its associated first persistent element; and randomly determining whether or not to award a first game feature associated with the first persistent element;
in response to awarding the first game feature: animating designation of at least one location within the bonus array as associated with the first game feature;
implementing the first game feature
These steps, when viewed in their entirety, describe organizing and managing a set of rules for game presentation, which is a form of managing human activity and following rules for playing a game. The USPTO recognizes “rules for playing a game” as an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Example 37; and In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Claims 1 and 11 do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The claim does not improve the functioning of the computer itself or another technology; rather, it uses the computer components as tools to implement the abstract idea of presenting game items.
No particular machine beyond generic components. Claims 1 and 11 recite “game-logic circuitry”; yet, these are generic computing elements. See MPEP 2106.05(b), (f).
The additional elements (gaming machine, game-logic circuitry, base game spin, bonus spins) are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment and do not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claims do not recite an inventive concept (“significantly more”) beyond the abstract ideas.
Generic computer components (gaming machine, game-logic circuitry) performing presentation of items are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities in the field of computer gaming.
Under Berkheimer v. HP, 881 F.3d 1360, absent evidence in the record that any claimed element or arrangement is not WURC, it is proper to treat generic servers, processors, and memories as conventional. The claims do not recite non-conventional computer functionality or architecture.
No specific algorithm, data structure, or hardware improvement is claimed that would transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are directed to judicial exceptions—organizing methods of human activity —and do not integrate those exceptions into a practical application. The additional elements, viewed individually and in combination, amount to no more than the abstract idea of game presentation, implemented on a generic computer, and therefore do not add “significantly more.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the bonus array" in lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Also, claim 11 has the same issue as claim 1 as stated above.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the array" in pg. 1, on line 4 from last bottom of the page; yet, this is unclear which “array” this limitation is referring to as the claim previously recite “a base array” and “the bonus array”. Thus, deemed indefinite. Also, claim 11 has the same issue as claim 1 as stated above.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite because of their respective dependence claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20240177567 to Hornik et al (Hornik) in view of US Pub. 20230099795 to Hendricks et al (Hendricks) and US Pub. 20210350678 to Warms et al (Warms).
Claims 1 and 11. Hornik discloses A method of operating a gaming machine, the method comprising the operations of:
conducting, by game-logic circuitry, a base game including:
presenting, by a presentation assembly, a meter, a base array, a plurality of symbol-bearing base reels, and a plurality of persistent elements (Fig. 4, elements 230, 240, 250, and ¶44), each persistent element having an associated game feature (¶46) and an associated accumulation symbol (¶38);
conducting a base game spin symbols of the base reels to land symbols from the base reels in the base array (¶¶7, 36); and
in response to the landed symbols including a first accumulation symbol:
animating an addition of the first accumulation symbol to its associated first persistent element (¶¶7, 44); and
randomly determining whether or not to award a first game feature associated with the first persistent element (Fig. 3B, and ¶¶7, 50); and
in response to awarding the first game feature:
animating designation of at least one location within the bonus array as associated with the first game feature (Figs. 5-7, and ¶54);
implementing the first game feature via the game-logic circuitry, wherein the implementing comprises:
comprising value-bearing symbols (Figs. 5-7, and ¶54);
in response to a value-bearing symbol bearing an initial value in a location designated as associated with the first game feature, applying rules associated with the first game feature (Figs. 5-7, and ¶54).
However, Hornik fails to explicitly disclose in the same embodiment:
conducting one of more bonus spins of a plurality of bonus reels, comprising value-bearing symbols, to land symbols from the bonus reels in the array; and
for each bonus spin, in response to a value-bearing symbol bearing an initial value landing in a location designated as associated with the first game feature, applying rules associated with the first game feature to one or more of the remaining landed symbols (emphasis added).
In some embodiments, Hornik discloses conducting one of more bonus spins of a plurality of bonus reels, comprising value-bearing symbols, to land symbols from the bonus reels in the array (¶50 “bonus games include a certain number of free games (i.e., spins of the reels)”; “a free spin bonus game, the free spins may be played as a “hold and spin” game in which certain types of symbols, once landed in the array, are held in place and persist in the array for at least one additional free spin cycle. These persistent symbols may include value-bearing (“WYSIWYG”) symbols”; “enhancement … may be applied to one or more subsequent bonus games”). The first embodiment gaming system of Hornik would have motivation to use the other embodiments disclosed in Hornik in order to give game players the perception that they have a higher probability to win larger game prizes in doing so would add to the entertainment value of the game while also encouraging people to play the game more often.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first embodiment gaming system of Hornik with the teachings of the other embodiments disclosed in Hornik in order to give game players the perception that they have a higher probability to win larger game prizes.
Hendriks teaches for each bonus spin, in response to a value-bearing symbol bearing an initial value landing in a location designated as associated with a game feature, applying rules associated with a game feature (Figs. 5A-5C, and ¶¶89-91). The first embodiment gaming system of Hornik in view of other embodiments of Hornik would have motivation to use the teachings of Hendriks in order to give further perception that there are additional opportunities to win larger game prizes in doing so would add to the entertainment value of the game while also encouraging people to play the game more often.
It would have been further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first embodiment gaming system of Hornik in view of other embodiments of Hornik with the teachings of Hendriks in order to give further perception that there are additional opportunities to win larger game prizes.
Warms teaches applying rules associated with a game feature to one or more of the remaining landed symbols (Figs. 6B-C, 7A-B, and ¶¶100-102 “expanding wilds feature”). The first embodiment gaming system of Hornik in view of other embodiments of Hornik and Hendricks would have motivation to use the teachings of Warms in order to give further perception that there are even more opportunities to win larger game prizes in doing so would add to the entertainment value of the game while also encouraging people to play the game more often.
It would have been further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first embodiment gaming system of Hornik in view of other embodiments of Hornik with the teachings of Hendriks in order to give further perception that there are more opportunities to win larger game prizes.
Claims 7 and 17. Hornik discloses further comprising in response to applying the rules associated with the first game feature, removing the designation of the at least one location within the bonus array as associated with the first game feature (see Hornik ¶54, for instance, the use of a game feature is completed after the game feature has been applied to prize fields and prizes are awarded).
Claims 10 and 20. Hornik discloses wherein randomly determining whether or not to award the game features associated with the persistent elements is, at least in part, based on the size of the persistent element or the volume of items therein (¶¶44-46, “persistent element and/or the volume of coins therein may appear to grow in size”, and “player perceives that a game feature corresponding to a persistent element may be getting closer to being triggered”).
Claims 2-6 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20240177567 to Hornik et al (Hornik) in view of US Pub. 20230099795 to Hendricks et al (Hendricks) and US Pub. 20210350678 to Warms et al (Warms) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US Pub. 20210082248 to Guerrero.
Claims 2 and 12. Hornik in view of Hendricks further comprising holding in place all value-bearing symbols that land in the array for the remainder of the bonus spins (see Hornik ¶50 “a free spin bonus game, the free spins may be played as a “hold and spin” game in which certain types of symbols, once landed in the array, are held in place and persist in the array for at least one additional free spin cycle”; and see Hendrcks Figs. 5A-5E, and ¶¶17, 90 “transparent prize symbols are “sticky,” in that they persist through multiple game instances of the bonus game”).
However, Hornik fails to explicitly disclose wherein each subsequent bonus spin lands symbols from the bonus reels only in locations not occupied by value-bearing symbols (emphasis added).
Guerrero teaches wherein each subsequent bonus spin lands symbols from the bonus reels only in locations not occupied by value-bearing symbols (Figs. 5-9, and ¶¶36, 40-42). The first embodiment gaming system of Hornik in view of other embodiments of Hornik, Hendricks, and Warms would have motivation to use the teachings of Guerrero in order to decrease the value of the expected payback to game players as a way to manage profits for a gaming establishment earned from the game play.
It would have been further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first embodiment gaming system of of Hornik in view of other embodiments of Hornik, Hendricks, and Warms with the teachings of Guerrero in order to modify the game play expected payback in doing so would assist in managing a gaming establishment’s profits during the game’s play.
Claims 3 and 13. Hornik in view of Hendricks and Guerrero teaches wherein, further comprising, in response to conclusion of the bonus spins, incrementing the meter by an amount based on a total of the values borne by all value-bearing symbols held in place in the array (see Hendricks Fig. 5G; and see Guerrero Fig. 19).
Claims 4 and 14. Hornik in view of Hendricks and Guerrero teaches wherein the rules comprise holding the value-bearing symbol in the location designated as associated with the first game feature in place in the array for each of the remaining bonus spins (see Hornik ¶50 “a free spin bonus game, the free spins may be played as a “hold and spin” game in which certain types of symbols, once landed in the array, are held in place and persist in the array for at least one additional free spin cycle”; and see Hendrcks Figs. 5A-5E, and ¶¶17, 90 “transparent prize symbols are “sticky,” in that they persist through multiple game instances of the bonus game”) and increasing the value borne by the value-bearing symbol in that location by an amount based on the initial value is response to each subsequent spin (see Hornik ¶50 “increased values on value-bearing symbols”; see Hendricks ¶¶18, 24, 91; see Guerrero ¶¶48-50, 70).
Claims 5 and 15. Hornik in view of Hendricks and Guerrero teaches wherein the rules comprise increasing a value borne by at least one other value-bearing symbol in the array by an amount based on the initial value (see Hornik ¶50 “increased values on value-bearing symbols”; see Hendricks ¶¶18-19 “credits may be upgraded”; see Guerrero ¶¶48-50, 70).
Claims 6 and 16. Hornik in view of Hendricks and Guerrero teaches wherein the rules comprise increasing the value borne by the value-bearing symbol in the location designated as associated with the first game feature by an amount based on a value borne by at least one other value-bearing symbol in the array (see Hornik ¶50 “increased values on value-bearing symbols”; see Hendricks ¶¶18-19 “credits may be upgraded”; see Guerrero ¶¶48-50, 70).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAMON J PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at 571-270-1344. 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.
/DAMON J PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715