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 Status
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 have been amended and no new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative argues that the amendments render the double-patenting analysis moot and that the rejections be withdrawn. After further consideration, the Examiner is persuaded by the Applicant’s argument and the double patenting is withdrawn.
The Applicant’s representative also argues that claims 1-20 are not directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more. Specifically, the Applicant’s representative submits the claims i) do not recite a grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A-prong 1 (see Remarks, pg. 18-22); ii) integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2 (see Remarks, pg. 23-24); and iii) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B (see Remarks, pg. 24). The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons as discussed in the sections below.
Response to arguments under Step 2A-prong 1
With respect to Step 2A-prong 1, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims are not directed to a certain method of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interaction, or managing personal behavior or relationships including rules or instructions (see Remarks, pg. 19-21). Specifically, the Applicant’s representative argues that while the claims do involve a game and recite game-related elements they recite “storing or accessing a weighted table defining weight values that are associated with different combinations of feature game and trigger symbols, where each weight value indicates a weighted probability of trigger the feature game associated with that weight value and where the weight value for certain specific feature game/trigger symbol(s) combinations are zero” which is not analogous to “rules or instructions” as was the case in Smith. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner acknowledges that, as amended, the claims recite “a weighted table” and corresponding “weight values” which are defined to “maintain a level of return-to-player” (see Specification, 0050-0051). As is understood to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts, “a return-to-player” is a regulatory requirement utilized to maintain the percentage of payout to a player of a wagering game, which is indicative that the claims recite steps that are directed to fundamental economic practices such as (e.g., hedging, insurance, or mitigating risk) for the player and gaming operator associated with a wagering game.
Additionally, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims are not directed to “rules” such as those recited in Smith, but fails to discuss the limitations which recite steps and/or instructions for managing a feature game including instructions for triggering a composite feature game/non-composite feature game such as: “determine, responsive to the displayed symbols including the first trigger symbol and none of the other trigger symbols and based on a random weighted selection using the weight values associated with the combinations that include only the first trigger symbol, whether to cause the first non-composite feature game to be presented on the one or more displays”, “determine, responsive to the displayed symbols including the second trigger symbol and none of the other trigger symbols and based on a random weighted selection using the weight values associated with the combinations that include only the second trigger symbol, whether to cause the second non-composite feature game to be presented on the one or more displays”, and “determine, responsive to the displayed symbols including the first trigger symbol and the second trigger symbol and none of the other trigger symbols and based on a random weighted selection using the weight values associated with the combinations that include only the first trigger symbol and the second trigger symbol, whether to cause the first composite feature game to be presented on the one or more displays”. There limitations are found to be directed to rules and instructions of the composite and/or non-composite feature game because they indicate the offer and opportunity to participate in the wagering slot machine game. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the claims are found to recite a certain method of organizing human activity under Step 2A-prong 1.
With respect to Step 2A-prong 2, the Applicant’s representative argues that any alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application because they recite “specific technical architecture for an electronic gaming system, a method for operating a game in an electronic gaming system, or one or more computer-readable media that utilize a weighted table with specifically contained weight values that govern when particular feature games are caused to be presented” (see Remarks, pg. 23-24). Specifically, the Applicant’s representative argues that the amended claims recite concrete technical benefits to the operation of the electronic gaming system because for a given combination of displayed trigger symbols and the weighted probability of each determines which feature games are eligible and prevents the triggering of feature games not associated with the displayed trigger symbols (see Remarks, pg. 23-24). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The determining which feature games to trigger in accordance with the weighted probability and preventing the triggering of feature games during the course of the game is directed to the abstract idea itself. Rules and/or instructions (e.g., trigger of a feature game based upon the conditions of the displayed trigger symbols), even in the context of a composite and/or non-composite feature game are found to be directed to a certain method of organizing human activity such as managing a feature game which does not integrate the claim into a practical application. Additionally, the steps, as amended, recite “storing a weighted table defining a plurality of weight values associated with respective feature games and trigger symbols” and retrieving information from the stored memory which the courts have indicated is recognized as “well-understood, routine, and conventional activity” (see MPEP 2106.05(d)I).
Furthermore, as noted in the court in Electric Power, collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information) (e.g., “a weighted table defining a plurality of weight values associated with respective feature games and trigger symbols”) are within the realm of abstract ideas. It follows that the Applicant’s argument that the claims are directed to “specific technical architecture that is an improvement to computer technology and/or a different field is not persuasive. In contrast, the analysis of the claims indicates that the claims recite a business method (e.g., managing a composite/non-composite feature game) implemented on a computer invoked as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or providing a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection has been maintained below.
With respect to Step 2B, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea (see Remarks, pg. 24). Specifically, the Applicant’s representative argues that the cited prior art of Vancura (US 2010/0029381 A1) discloses a “conventional gaming system configuration comprises a server coupled to a remote gaming system comprising a processor, a memory, a display, and a random number generator to perform random events” but does not address the “weighted table with zero-weight constraints governing composite and non-composite feature game triggering, conditional feature-game determination based on specific trigger symbol presence and absence, and composite animation presentation”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, governing composite and non-composite feature game triggering, conditional feature-game determination based on specific trigger symbol present and absence, and composite animation presentation are found to recite at least one of: steps and/or instructions for managing a composite and non-composite feature game. As to the “weighted table”, the use of probability tables for determinations in wagering game is known to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts for conforming with regulatory requirements associated with wagering games (see Specification, 0050-0051). Moreover, Brown et al. (US 2003/0100356 A1) discloses that games designed using weighted probabilities is well-known in the art (see Brown, 0147). Brown further discloses tables utilizing variable probabilities to meet an Expected Value to maintain a RTP and the associated frequency of the selection of game elements is well-known in the art (see Brown, 0147). It follows that the use of weighted tables is known in the art and/or merely to satisfy regulatory requirements in a wagering environment. Therefore, the Applicant’s argument that the claims recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to a different field is not persuasive. For at least these reasons, the rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained below.
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 grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, recites limitations directed to a grouping of abstract ideas such as:
1. An electronic gaming system comprising:
at least one server storing a weighted table defining a plurality of weight values associated with respective feature games and trigger symbols, wherein: - certain method of organizing human activity;
each weight value is associated with a different combination of respective one of the feature games and one or more of the trigger symbols and indicates a weighted probability of triggering the feature game of the associated combination, - certain method of organizing human activity;
each of the feature games is either a non-composite feature game or a composite feature game, - certain method of organizing human activity;
each non-composite feature game is associated with a different one of the trigger symbols, - certain method of organizing human activity;
each composite feature game is associated with a different combination of two or more of the trigger symbols and combines elements of, and respective animations for, the non-composite feature games associated with the two or more trigger symbols in the associated two or more of the trigger symbols, - certain method of organizing human activity;
the weight value associated with each combination of one of the feature games and a single trigger symbol is zero unless the feature game in the combination is the non-composite feature game associated with the single trigger symbol, - certain method of organizing human activity;
the weight value associated with each combination of the one of the feature games and two or more of the trigger symbols is zero unless the feature game is one of the non-composite feature games associated with one of the two or more trigger symbols or one of the composite feature games associated with two or more of the two or more trigger symbols, - certain method of organizing human activity;
the weight values are defined to maintain a level of return-to-player, and - certain method of organizing human activity;
the feature games include a first non-composite feature game associated with a first trigger symbol of the trigger symbols and incorporating a first animation, a second non-composite feature game associated with a second trigger symbol of the trigger symbols and incorporating a second animation, and a first composite feature game associated with the first trigger symbol and the second trigger symbol and combining elements of the first non-composite feature game and the second non-composite feature game and incorporating elements of the first animation and the second animation; and - certain method of organizing human activity;
a remote gaming device coupled to the at least one server and comprising one or more displays, one or more processors, and one or more memories storing a plurality of reel strips that include a plurality of symbols that include non-trigger symbols and trigger symbols, the one or more memories further storing a plurality of instructions which, when executed, cause the one or more processors to at least:
cause a game outcome to be displayed on the one or more displays, the game outcome including a plurality of the symbols selected from the reel strips based on output from a random number generator, - certain method of organizing human activity;
determine, responsive to the displayed symbols including the first trigger symbol and none of the other trigger symbols and based on a random weighted selection using the weight values associated with the combinations that include only the first trigger symbol, whether to cause the first non-composite feature to be presented on the one or more displays;
cause, responsive to determining that the first non-composite feature game is to be presented on the one or more displays, the first non-composite feature game to be presented on the one or more displays;
determine, responsive to the displayed symbols including the second trigger symbol and none of the other trigger symbols and based on a random weighted selection using the weight values associated with the combinations that include only the second trigger symbol, whether to cause the second non-composite feature game to be presented on the one or more displays;
cause, responsive to determining that the second non-composite feature game is to be presented on the one or more displays, the second non-composite feature game to be presented on the one or more displays;
determine, responsive to the displayed symbols including the first trigger symbol and the second trigger symbol and none of the other trigger symbols and based on a random weighted selection using the weight values associated with the combinations that include only the first trigger symbol and the second trigger symbol, whether to cause the first composite game to be presented on the one or more displays; and
cause, responsive to determining that the first composite feature game is to be presented on the one or more displays, the presentation of the first composite feature game including the elements of the first animation and the second animation.
The claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, recite a series of steps directed to a series of rules and/or instructions for managing a composite feature game/non-composite feature game. Additionally, some of the limitation, as indicated above, recite a mental process because they recite an observation, judgment, evaluation, and/or opinion that is capable of being performed in the human mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper. For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, is found to recite a grouping of abstract idea under Step 2A-prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations such as: “at least one server storing a weighted table” “a remote gaming device coupled to the at least one server and comprising one or more displays, one or more processors, and one or more memories storing a plurality of reel strips that include a plurality of symbols that include non-trigger symbols and trigger symbols, the one or more memories further storing a plurality of instructions which, when executed, cause the one or more processors to at least:” “cause a game outcome to be displayed on the one or more displays,” “based on output from a random number generator,” “first non-composite feature to be presented on the one or more displays” “cause, responsive to determining that the first non-composite feature game is to be presented on the one or more displays,” “second non-composite feature game to be presented on the one or more displays” “cause, responsive to determining that the second non-composite feature game is to be presented on the one or more displays, the second non-composite feature game to be presented on the one or more displays;” and “cause the first composite game to be presented on the one or more displays” and “cause, responsive to determining that the first composite feature game is to be presented on the one or more displays, the presentation of the first composite feature game including the elements of the first animation and the second animation.” are found to recite additional limitations that invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, perform insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)).
The claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements such as: “at least one server”, “a remote gaming device comprising one or more displays, one or more processors, and one or more memories” and “a random number generator” when viewed individually and/or as a combination of elements amount to invoking well-known, routine and conventional computer components that are known to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts. For instance, Vancura (US 2010/0029381 A1) discloses a conventional gaming system configuration comprises a server coupled to a remote gaming system comprising a processor, a memory, a display and a random number generator to perform random events (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0008, 0037-0040). Brown et al. (US 2003/0100356 A1) discloses that games designed using weighted probabilities and associated frequency for selecting game elements and utilizing variable probabilities to meet an Expected Value to maintain a RTP are well-known in the art (see Brown, 0147). Moreover, a review of the Specification indicates that maintain an RTP and the use of weight tables for selection are to satisfy regulatory requirements associated with wagering games which is not indicative of an improvement to the computer and/or to a different field of technology (see Specification, 0050-051), For at least these reasons, the additional elements are not found to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Regarding independent Claims 8 and 15, the claims recite substantially the same subject matter as analyzed above with respect to independent Claim 1 which is incorporated herein. The differences between independent Claim 1 is that they are directed to a method of operating a game in an electronic gaming system in Claim 8 and storing in a non-transitory computer readable-medium embodiment in Claim 15. However these differences do not alter or change the analysis and conclusions reached in review of independent Claim 1. For at least these reasons, independent Claims 8 and 15 are found to be directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding dependent Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, the limitations of the dependent claims have been reviewed and analyzed. Each of the limitations of the dependent Claims were found to recite at least one of: an additional limitation directed to a grouping of abstract ideas, mere instructions to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.04(a); 2106.05(f)-(h)) which do not integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2 or amount to significantly more under Step 2B. For at least these reasons, claims 1-20 are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RYAN HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00-6:00 PM.
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.
/RYAN HSU/ EXAMINER, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights