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 .
Response to Amendment
This is in response to the amendments filed on 6/22/26. Claims 1, 3, 8, and 16 have been amended. Claims 1 – 20 are pending in the current application.
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 therefore, 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 non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: It must be determined whether the invention falls into one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claims 1, 2, and 8 – 20 are directed towards a system, (machine), and claims 3 – 7 are directed towards a method, (process), which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a:
Prong 1: It must be determined whether the invention is directed to judicially recognized exception. Claim 1 is analyzed below with limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea.
1. A system, comprising: a memory; and a computing device in communication with the memory, the computing device being configured to at least: generate an outcome of a wagering game based on one or more generation rules comprising a plurality of indicia, wherein the one or more generation rules cause the computing device to determine a plurality of outcomes comprising a plurality of matching combinations and the plurality of outcomes comprise the outcome; render a first user interface comprising the plurality of indicia and a payline; determine that a particular combination of indicia of the plurality of indicia are positioned along the payline, wherein the plurality of matching combinations comprises the particular combination of indicia; in response to determining that the particular combination of indicia is positioned along the pay line, render a second user interface comprising a second plurality of indicia comprising at least two indicia corresponding to one indicium in the particular combination of indicia from the wagering game; receive a selection at the second user interface of a particular indicium of the second plurality of indicia; and in response to determining that the particular indicium being one of the at least two indicia, render a third user interface indicating a matching of the at least two indicia and award a matching bonus, wherein awarding the matching bonus comprises incrementing at least one meter.
The abstract idea is defined by the underlined portions exemplary claim 1, with substantially similar features found in claims 3 and 8. Dependent claims 2, 4 – 7 and 9 - 20 further define the abstract idea or relate to the implementation of the abstract idea. The abstract idea is defined in at least the following grouping below:
Mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment)
The claims are directed towards an abstract idea of rules for conducting a game which falls into the category of mental processes, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a gaming system comprising a set of reels and gaming symbols that presents a game to a player, wherein the game represents the exchange of consideration based on probabilities created during the dealing and displaying of randomly displayed reel and symbol outcomes. The claimed invention can be practically performed as a mental process by a human managing a game comprising reels and symbols. A human can take control of the game and make game determinations in their mind. (Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The claims are also directed towards a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more humans, which fall into the category of mental processes, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a gaming system, wherein the claims require displaying a plurality of reels and symbols. The claims further recite triggering a bonus game that comprises at least two symbols from a symbol combination in a primary game that triggered the bonus game, and incrementing a meter based on the outcome of the bonus game. The claims recite instructions with these features. Here, a human can observe the displaying of reels and symbols and determine an outcome, wherein based on the state of the game with respect to the reels and symbols, a human can observe the triggering of a bonus game, at least one free spin, the metamorphic animation, the collecting and growth of the cash on reel symbols, wherein a human can then make a determination of a next step to make based on the state of the game. For example, in the event that a player is playing a slot machine game, a human can observe a reel outcome that triggers a bonus game, observe whether there is matching of at least two symbols during, wherein a human can then make a determination based on a progressive meter, (incrementing of at least one meter), and the state of the game that is favorable to the player. Therefore, since the claimed invention can practically be performed in the human mind, it represents an ineligible abstract mental process. (Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F. 3d 1307). Furthermore, the claims are also drawn to how a game is played, which represents following rules/instructions that define how a game is played.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception?
The claims recite a generic device and memory along with instructions that generates and presents a slot machine game to a player, which is viewed as no more than instructions to implement a judicial exception.
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2b: It must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim language does recite a computing device, memory, and a plurality of reels and symbols, however, viewed as a whole, these additional elements are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art, (See Kelly et al. U.S. 2016/0093133 par. 0003 slot machine bonus games as being well-known in the art). Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Viewing 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to 102 rejection of claims 1 – 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102 rejection of claims 1 - 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 101 rejection of claims 1 – 20 are fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1 – 20, Applicants argue that “the claim amendments overcome the rejection under § 101”. More specifically, it is argued that the claims does not “recite incentivizing the behavior of users playing a game, fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior”. While the Examiner agrees to this, however, the current claims do not overcome a 101 rejection, as the claims are not properly rejected as being directed towards mental processes for reasons stated above.
Applicants further argue that “amended claim 1 integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application”. More specifically, it is argued that the gaming operations of “generating an outcome using one or more generation rules that cause a computing device to determine a plurality of outcomes comprising matching combinations, rendering a sequence of distinct user interfaces and conditionally rendering a third user interface indicating a match and awarding a matching bonus by incrementing at least one meter based on a selection received at the second user interface”, “are directed to improving the functioning of the gaming device through a structured, multi-stage user interface that presents and resolves a skill-based indicia-matching feature, rather than reciting rules or instructions for conducting a game”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The gaming operation examples cited by the Applicants, are viewed by the Examiner as game rules rather than technical improvements. Merely disclosing that an electronic device and computing hardware and software performing game rules does not, as claimed, improve the functioning of computers. With respect to the Berkheimer decision, reference is made for example, (Marks et al. U.S. 2005/0192081), which shows a gaming system comprising primary and secondary game outcomes being linked to a progressive system as being known in the art, (see par. 0061 of Marks).
Applicants further argue that “claim 1 provides a technical solution to a technical problem- namely presenting and resolving a skill-based matching feature through a deterministic, state-driven sequence of discrete user interface renderings, each generated in response to a detected system state or input event, that reduces the interaction overhead and multi-step input complexity imposed by conventional skill-based machines. This is a practical, real-world improvement in computer gaming system operation, not an abstract result”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, the current claims does not recite steps that represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, nor do the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of operating a gaming machine, because the additional elements, computing device and memory, are recited generically. For example, the claims do not recite how the “computing device”, “memory” solves a technical problem. Steps like generating, rendering, and receiving, for example, are generic instructions to apply an abstract idea using conventional components. For these reasons, the Examiner maintains that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1699. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
/E.M.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/JUSTIN L MYHR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights