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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 16, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,676,444 B2 in view of Mastropietro et al. (US 2014/0274282 A1). The claims have been analyzed in the claim chart below:
Claim 1 of the instant application
Claim 1 of the ‘444 patent
Similarities and Differences
An electronic gaming system comprising: at least one server comprising a weighted table having a plurality of weight values assigned to trigger one of a respective feature game and composite feature game combining a plurality of respective feature games and animations; and a remote gaming device coupled to the at least one server, and comprising a processor and a memory storing a plurality of reel strips that include a plurality of non-trigger symbols and a plurality of trigger symbols for triggering respectively a plurality of feature games having respective animations, and a plurality of instructions, when executed, cause the processor to at least:
An electronic gaming device comprising: a credit input device; a display device; an input device operable to receive player input; and a game controller coupled to the credit input device, the display device and input device, the game controller comprising at least one processor and a memory, the memory storing:
a) a first trigger symbol that triggers a first feature game having a first animation, a second trigger symbol that triggers a second feature game having a second animation, and a plurality of non-trigger symbols, the first trigger symbol, the second trigger symbol, and the plurality of non-trigger symbols forming a plurality of reel strips, at least a portion of the plurality of reel strips are viewable at a plurality of columns of symbol positions on the display device, and one or both of the first trigger symbol and the second trigger symbol being selectable concurrently for display,
b) at least one weighted table that lists a plurality of weight values assigned to triggering the first feature game, the second feature game, and a first composite game combining both the first animation and the second animation, respectively, and
c) instructions, which, when executed, cause the at least one processor to at least:
Similarities – Both claims recite a gaming device comprising a processor and a memory with non-trigger symbols and trigger symbols for a plurality of feature games with a plurality of lists of weights to triggering the first feature game animation and a second feature game with a second triggering symbol to trigger a composite feature game.
Differences – the instant claims recite a server to implement the claimed features as opposed to a gaming machine in the ‘444 patent. However, Mastropietro teaches that it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts that game features such as looking up probability weights and selecting symbols for a game outcome may be performed or provided by a server, a remote networked gaming device either singly or in combination.
display a plurality of symbols selected for the reel strips based on one or more random numbers generated by a random number generator,
receive, from the at least one server, data indicative of a weight value assigned in the weighted table to triggering a first composite feature game to maintain a level of return-to-player when the plurality of symbols selected include a first trigger symbol and a second trigger symbol;
animate the first composite feature game feature game incorporating at least one respective characteristics from a first animation for a first feature game and a second animation for a second feature game based on the weight value assigned received, and
control the display device to display a plurality of symbols selected in the plurality of columns of symbol positions, respectively, based on one or more random numbers generated by a random number generator, when one or both of the first trigger symbol and the second trigger symbol are displayed,
animate one or both of the first trigger symbol and the second trigger symbol moving from one of the plurality of reel strips towards a first trigger symbol collection graphic where the first trigger symbol is collected or a second trigger symbol collection graphic where the second trigger symbol is collected, when both of the first trigger symbol and the second trigger symbol are collected in the first trigger symbol collection graphic and the second trigger symbol collection graphic,
Similarities – Both the instant application and the ‘444 patent recite selecting a first trigger symbol and a second trigger symbol based on a random number generator to cause a composite feature game incorporating at least one characteristic from a first animation associated with the first feature game and the second animation for the second feature game while maintaining a level of return-to-player.
Differences – the instant application recites transmitting the plurality of symbols which is taught by Mastropietro as a conventional technique to provide symbols using a server and/or gaming network. Therefore it would have an obvious variant of the instantly claimed invention.
initiate, for the first trigger symbol in the first feature game, a first plurality of instances selected from a plurality of numbers of instances randomly selected based on the random numbers.
respectively, animate a first composite feature game incorporating at least one characteristic of each of the first animation for the first feature game and the second animation for the second feature game based on a weight value assigned to triggering the first composite feature game to maintain a level of return-to-player, provide, for the second trigger symbol in the second feature game, a first number of instances of a first award and a second number of instances for a second award, and award one of the first award and the second award randomly selected based on one or more random numbers generated by the random number generator
Similarities – Both claims recite presenting (e.g., initiate/animate a first feature game to trigger instances of the composite feature game based upon random numbers.
Differences – the instant claims recite a broader embodiment that do not require the particulars of the particular awards cited in the ‘944 Patent but to the general initiated of a first feature game of the plurality of composite feature games.
Regarding claims 8 and 15, the independent claims are directed to substantially the same subject matter but are directed to a method (claim 8) and a non-transitory computer-readable medium embodiment (claim 15).
Although the claims, independent Claims 1, 8, and 15, at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from independent Claim 1 of the ‘444 patent because the instant claims recite substantially the same subject matter directed to a composite feature game comprising a random number generator to select a first and second trigger symbols via weight tables and provide a composite feature game comprising animations of a first and second feature game while maintaining a return to player to be initiated from a plurality of numbers of instances randomly selected based on the random numbers as recited in Claim 1 of the ‘444 patent. The differences in the claim are that the instant application recites a system, method and non-transitory computer readable medium as opposed to an electronic gaming device in the ‘444 patent. However, as taught by Mastropietro conventional methods for assigning weighted probabilities and symbols for a reel to generate a game outcome may be performed by a system including a server, computer system, and/or gaming network (see Mastropietro, 0079). For at least these reasons, the differences are mere obvious variants to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts and are not patentably distinct.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16 of the instant application recite substantially the same subject matter as Claim 2 of the ‘444 patent.
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17 of the instant application recite substantially the same subject matter as Claim 4 of the ‘444 patent.
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18 of the instant application recite substantially the same subject matter as Claim 7 of the ‘444 patent.
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19 of the instant application recite substantially the same subject matter as Claim 5 of the ‘444 patent.
Regarding claims 6 and 13 of the instant application recite substantially the same subject matter as Claim 16 of the ‘444 patent.
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 20 of the instant application recite substantially the same subject matter as Claim 18 of the ‘444 patent.
The differences between the claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are that the instant application recites a system, method and non-transitory computer-readable medium of the claimed invention as opposed to an electronic gaming device as in the ‘444 patent. However, as taught by Mastropietro conventional methods for assigning weighted probabilities and symbols for a reel to generate a game outcome may be performed by a system including a server, computer system, and/or gaming network (see Mastropietro, 0079). For at least these reasons, the differences are found to be mere obvious variants to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts and are not patentably distinct.
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 comprising a weighted table having a plurality of weight values assigned to trigger one of a respective feature game and a composite feature game combining a plurality of respective feature games and animations; and
a remote gaming device coupled to the at least one server, and comprising a processor and a memory storing a plurality of reel strips that include a plurality of non-trigger symbols and a plurality of trigger symbols for triggering respectively a plurality of feature games having respective animations, and a plurality of instructions, when executed, cause the processor to at least:
display a plurality of symbols selected for the reel strips based on one or more random numbers generated by a random number generator,
receive, from the at least one server, data indicative of a weight value assigned in the weighted table to triggering a first composite feature game to maintain a level of return-to-player when the plurality of symbols selected include a first trigger symbol and a second trigger symbol, -certain method of organizing human activity;
animate the first composite feature game incorporating at least one respective characteristic from a first animation for a first feature game and a second animation for a second feature game based on the weight value assigned received, and
initiate, for the first trigger symbol in the first feature game, a first plurality of instances selected from a plurality of numbers of instances randomly selected based on the random numbers. – certain method of organizing human activity;
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. 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 comprising a weighted table having a plurality of weight values assigned to trigger one of a respective feature game and a composite feature game combining a plurality of respective feature games and animations;” a remote gaming device coupled to the at least one server, and comprising a processor and a memory storing a plurality of reel strips that include a plurality of non-trigger symbols and a plurality of trigger symbols for triggering respectively a plurality of feature games having respective animations, and a plurality of instructions, when executed, cause the processor to at least:” “display a plurality of symbols selected for the reel strips based on one or more random numbers generated by a random number generator,” “receive, from the at least one server, data indicative of a weight value assigned in the weighted table to” and “animate the first composite feature game incorporating at least one respective characteristic from a first animation for a first feature game and a second animation for a second feature game based on the weight value assigned received,” have been analyzed and found to recite result-oriented functional limitations that amount to mere instructions to 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)). For at least these reasons, the additional limitations claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, are not found to integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2.
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” “a processor”, “a memory”, 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). 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
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