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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 4/2/26.
In the response Applicant amended claim(s) 6, 10-11, 14.
Currently, claim(s) 1-19 is/are pending.
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.
In the instant application, claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A:
However, claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For instance, regarding independent claim(s) 1, 10,
Prong 1 analysis:
The limitations of “a) in response to a wager placed by said player from said player credit balance, graphically display a player symbol matrix of randomly selected player symbols, said player symbol matrix having a plurality of N columns; b) randomly select a number of game symbol positions corresponding to each column of the player symbol matrix and to cause the at least one display device to graphically display a game symbol window corresponding to each of the number of game symbol positions in a game symbol matrix having N columns aligned with said N columns of said player symbol matrix; c) randomly select a game symbol corresponding to each of said number of game symbol positions and graphically transform said game symbol windows to display said game symbols in said positions corresponding thereto; and d) determine matches of any displayed game symbols to player symbols in corresponding columns of said player symbol matrix and said game symbol matrix; and e) determine if one or more matches comprise at least one predetermined winning outcome of said game”, are considered to fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (managing personal behavior, rules). The mere nominal recitation of generic electronic gaming elements does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-19 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Prong 2 analysis:
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the additional elements “a monetary funds accepting mechanism for accepting monetary funds in creating a player credit balance; at least one display device; at least one player input device; a memory device; a controller; and machine-readable code stored in said memory device and executable by said controller, at least a first RNG”, are generically recited computer elements that do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer. The claimed elements are recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering and data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Each of the additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, in view of Berkheimer, the recited additional elements are considered as conventional activity. For instance, Cannon (2007/0184887) teaches the recited additional elements (Fig 1-2A, ¶¶0071-0075).
In addition, with regards to dependent claims, the courts have recognized the computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
For instance, regarding claims 1-19, each claim describes physical or software elements that provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea, which is similar to the conventional activity or as insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting information, based on types of information, for collection, analysis and display in EPG, gathering, receiving and transmitting data in Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs., buySAFE, and rules in In re Smith.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-19 is/are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejection,
Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible in view of Ex Parte Berndt Burghard. This argument is not persuasive. As noted in Applicant’s own response, in Berndt, the PTAB ruled that the limitations “…at least one of the scatter symbols is transformed into a wild symbol during bonus game play…after the matrix of symbols stop changing the wild symbol moves to a random location in the matrix of symbols” provide a technological improvement by providing a new and improved level of bonus play that uses new and improved animations. Here, the present claim does not provide a new game play that uses new and improved animations. For instance, the claim recites “…graphically transform said game symbol windows to display said game symbols…” As illustrated in the specification’s Fig. 5-8, the game symbol matrix merely displays the game symbols in the matrix in order to determine if any matches exist, wherein a match is indicated by graphically illustrating a STAR symbol. In other words, the visual transformation is used to indicate game results or potential wins for the player. As such, since the present claim’s transformation does not provide a new game play that uses new and improved animations, the claimed invention is not comparable to Berndt.
Applicant further argues that the present application recited limitations that a) graphically indicating a number of variable game symbol positions and the transformation of the indicated variable number of positions…b) randomly select a number of game symbol positions…c) randomly select a game symbol…cause said at least one display device to graphically transform said game symbol windows to display said game symbols in said positions. This argument is not persuasive and similar to the one above. Applicant is directed to review the response above.
Applicant further argues the visual transformation adds excitement to the game, that is, game excitement is increased by the visual transformation of the game symbol windows to actual displayed game symbols for matching to the player symbols. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument of increasing game excitement describes desired results for the claimed invention and has not identified any “improved technological result” generated by the identified limitations. Cf. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316. Therefore, for the reasons as set forth above, the 101 rejection has been maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TAHAI YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1777. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7am- 3pm PST.
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.
/JASON T YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights