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 non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
I. The claims are drawn to apparatus, process and CRM categories.
II. Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2a:
III. Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Representative claim 1 is analyzed below, with italicized limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea.
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 comprising a plurality of indicia; determine that a particular combination of indicia of the plurality of indicia are positioned along a payline; in response to determining that a particular combination of indicia is positioned along a pay line, render 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 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 user interface indicating a matching of the at least two indicia and award a matching bonus.
The underlined limitations fall within at least three of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG:
Fundamental economic principles or practices
Commercial or legal interactions
Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people
The claims are directed towards incentivizing the behavior of users playing a game via group agreements or contract. This is viewed by the Examiner as a fundamental economic practice, an agreement in the form of contracts, and managing personal behavior or relationships between people, which are all considered to be abstract ideas according to the 2019 guidelines.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
iii. Although the claims recite additional limitations, such as one or more processors and at least one server, the said additional limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require
additional limitations such as an interface, processor, and display components.
iv. 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:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, the claim language does recite additional elements such as a memory, however, these viewed as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements 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.
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Englman et al. (U.S. 2013/0143641).
Regarding claim 1, Englman discloses a system comprising a memory and a computing device in communication with the memory, (fig. 2), the computing device being configured to at least generate an outcome of a wagering game comprising a plurality of indicia, (“conducting a wagering game on a gaming system comprises displaying an array of symbols that indicate a randomly selected outcome of the wagering game”, par. 0006), determine that a particular combination of indicia of the plurality of indicia are positioned along a payline, (“determining whether the new array includes a winning symbol combination on an active payline extending through at least one single-symbol reel”, par. 0006), in response to determine that a particular combination of indicia is positioned along a payline, render a second plurality of indicia comprising at least two indicia corresponding to one indicium in the particular combination of indicia from the wagering game, (fig. 6, part 240c), receive a selection of a particular indicium of the second plurality of indicia, (fig. 6, part 240c), and in response to determining that the particular indicium being one of the at least two indicia, render a user interface indicating a matching of the at least two indicia, (fig. 6, part 240c), and award a matching bonus, (“Winning combinations listed in the pay table can include three like-symbols appearing on a payline yielding a first payout, four like-symbols appearing on a payline yielding a second, larger payout”, par. 0050).
Regarding claim 2, Englman discloses wherein the at least two indicia comprise three indicia, (fig. 6, part 240c).
Regarding claim 3, Englman discloses generating, via at least one computing device, (fig. 2), an outcome of a wagering game comprising a plurality of indicia, (“conducting a wagering game on a gaming system comprises displaying an array of symbols that indicate a randomly selected outcome of the wagering game”, par. 0006), determine that a particular combination of indicia of the plurality of indicia are positioned along a payline, (“determining whether the new array includes a winning symbol combination on an active payline extending through at least one single-symbol reel”, par. 0006), in response to determine that a particular combination of indicia is positioned along a payline, render a second plurality of indicia comprising at least two indicia corresponding to one indicium in the particular combination of indicia from the wagering game, (fig. 6, part 240c), receive a selection of a particular indicium of the second plurality of indicia, (fig. 6, part 240c), and in response to determining that the particular indicium being one of the at least two indicia, render a user interface indicating a matching of the at least two indicia, (fig. 6, part 240c), and award a matching bonus, (“Winning combinations listed in the pay table can include three like-symbols appearing on a payline yielding a first payout, four like-symbols appearing on a payline yielding a second, larger payout”, par. 0050).
Regarding claim 4, Englman discloses a second matching game, the second matching game involving selecting one matching indicium to generate a matching award, (fig. 4 to fig. 6).
Regarding claims 5 – 7, 10 – 13, and 20, Englman discloses wherein the matching award comprises a percentage of a bet amount, (“Winning combinations listed in the pay table can include three like-symbols appearing on a payline yielding a first payout”, par. 0050).
Regarding claim 8, Englman discloses system, comprising: a memory; and a computing device in communication with the memory, (fig. 2), the computing device being configured to at least: generate an outcome of a wagering game comprising a plurality of indicia, (“conducting a wagering game on a gaming system comprises displaying an array of symbols that indicate a randomly selected outcome of the wagering game”, par. 0006), determine that a particular combination of indicia of the plurality of indicia are positioned along a pay line; indicate a subset of the particular combination of indicia; receive a selection of at least two indicia of the subset of the particular combination of indicia; render 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 of a particular indicium of the second plurality of indicia; and in response to the particular indicium being one of the at least two indicia of the second plurality of indicia, render a user interface indicating a matching of the at least two indicia of the second plurality of indicia, (fig. 6, part 240c), and award a matching award, (“Winning combinations listed in the pay table can include three like-symbols appearing on a payline yielding a first payout, four like-symbols appearing on a payline yielding a second, larger payout”, par. 0050).
Regarding claim 9, Englman discloses wherein the second plurality of indicia is rendered in response to the at least two indicia selected failing to match each other, (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 14, Englman discloses wherein the plurality of indicia comprises a plurality of animations, (fig. 4 and fig. 6).
Regarding claims 15 - 18, Englman discloses wherein the computing device is further configured to iteratively generate a plurality of trial outcomes until an outcome is generated where no winning combination is achieved, (“a method of conducting a wagering game on a gaming system comprises displaying an array of symbols that indicate a randomly selected outcome of the wagering game”, par. 0006).
Regarding claim 19, Englman discloses wherein the user interface comprises rendering a pay table, (“The payoff amounts distributed by the payoff mechanism 40 are determined by one or more pay tables”, par. 0042).
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, David Lewis can be reached at 571-272-7673. 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 /DAVID L LEWIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715