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 .
Procedural Summary
This is responsive to the claims filed 06/20/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Applicant’s IDS submission is acknowledged and provided herewith.
The Drawings filed on 06/20/2024 are noted.
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 to 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Each of Claims 1 to 20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
The examiner follows the two step-analysis, as described in MPEP 2106 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html). The following diagram is an overview of the steps involved.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1
Step 1 of the two step-analysis considers whether the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention such as a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The instant invention claims a gaming system in Claims 1-20. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad statutory categories of invention. However, claims that fall within one of the four statutory categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas.
Step 2A
Step 2A has been further divided into two prongs as shown in the following diagram.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Step 2A, Prong 1
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon. The term “abstract idea” is not interpreted as a layperson might. Instead, the term “abstract idea” is interpreted as described in legal opinions by courts.
According to MPEP 2106.04(a):
the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Here, each of Claims 1 to 20 recite steps, instructions or rules for providing a game involving managing interactions between people, namely, following rules, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Further, each of Claims 1 to 20 recite steps or instructions involving observations, judgements or evaluations, which are mental processes under the 2019 PEG. Specifically, independent Claim 1 (and similarly recited Claims 10 and 15) recites
“… 1. A gaming system comprising:
a processor (additional element); and
a memory device (additional element) that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
cause a display, by a display device (additional element), of an indication of a hand;
cause a display, by the display device, of different runs of the hand, and for each run, a tile application area associated with that run and an indication of the tiles required to complete the run;
cause a display, by the display device, of a tile accumulation area;
cause a display, by the display device, of symbol display elements;
cause a display, by the display device, of activations of the symbol display elements;
cause a display, by the display device, of tiles associated with the activations of the symbol display elements;
cause a display, by the display device, for each of the displayed tiles, of an indication of whether the tile is accumulated in the tile accumulation area or the tile is discarded;
cause a display, by the display device, for the displayed tiles in the tile accumulation area, of placements of the tiles into the tile application areas associated with the runs;
cause a display, by the display device, for each of a plurality of the runs, an indication of a proper completion of the run based on the tiles placed in the tile application area associated with the run;
cause a display, by the display device, for one of the runs, an indication of an improper completion of the run based on the tiles placed in the tile application area associated with the run; and
cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of a completion of the hand after all of the indications of the completions of all of the runs.”
Claim 10 recites “10. A gaming system comprising:
a processor (additional element); and
a memory device (additional element) that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
cause a display, by a display device, of an indication of a hand comprising different runs, and for each run an indication of any tiles required to complete the run;
cause a display, by the display device, of symbol display elements;
cause a display, by the display device, of activations of the symbol display elements; cause a display, by the display device, of tiles associated with the activations of the symbol display elements;
cause a display, by the display device, for each of the displayed tiles, of an indication of whether the tile is accumulated or the tile is discarded;
cause a display, by the display device, for the accumulated tiles, of placements of the tiles in association with the runs;
cause a display, by the display device, for one or more of the runs, an indication of a completion of the run based on the tiles associated with the run;
cause a display, by the display device, for one or more of the runs, an indication of a bypass of the run; and
cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of a completion of the hand after all of the indications of the completions and/or bypasses of all of the runs.”
Claim 15 recites “15. A gaming system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
cause a display, by a display device, of an indication of a hand comprising different runs, and for each run an indication of any tiles required to complete the run;
cause a display, by the display device, of symbol display elements;
cause a sequential display, by the display device, of each of a plurality of different tiles;
cause a display, by the display device, for each of the displayed tiles, of an indication of whether the tile is accumulated or the tile is discarded, wherein a limited quantity of tiles can be accumulated at any one time;
cause a display, by the display device, for the accumulated tiles, of placements of the tiles in association with the runs, wherein for each placement of a tile in association with one of the runs, the quantity of accumulated tiles is reduced; and
cause a display, by the display device, for each of the runs, either an indication of a completion of the run based on the tiles associated with the run and the required tiles for the run, or an indication of a bypass of the run based on the tiles associated with the run and the required tiles for the run; and
cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of a completion of the hand after all of the indications of the completions and/or bypasses of all of the runs.”
As indicated above, the underlined portions of representative Independent Claim 1, and similarly recited Independent Claims 10 and 15, generally encompass the abstract ideas, which may be viewed, for example, as:
a fundamental economic practice (e.g., rules for conducting a game as determined by odds) as discussed in In re Smith, and In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V.,
a method of managing a game similar to that of managing a game of bingo in Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F. App'x 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (non-precedential);
a set of game rules similar to increasing or decreasing the risk-to-reward ratio of a game, as discussed in Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of Am., 4 F.4th 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021); and/or
a method of organizing human activities (e.g., allowing a human player to play an award-providing game according to rules of the game method) as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank.
The claimed abstract idea reproduced above relate to the “fundamental economic practice” of rules for conducting a game. The abstract idea is also similar to that of Planet Bingo, in which a method of managing a bingo game was found to be an abstract idea. Though the instant claims are not limited to bingo games, they encompass the management of similar games. The abstract idea is also comparable to the game rules presented on gaming machines in Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of America, in which a reward probability could be increased or decreased based on aggregating previous game outcomes placed on the gaming machines. The instant claims encompass organizing and conducting a game, applying game rules to determine completion of runs, assigning awards based on outcomes and/or displaying game information. Such transactions are akin to the sort of organizing of human activities, discussed in Bilski (and shadow accounts in Alice). Accordingly, each of Claims 1 to 20 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the additional elements in the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Here, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. According to 2019 PEG, a consideration indicative of integration into a practical application includes improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular application (a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components for filtering Internet content, as discussed in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Conversely, considerations not indicative of integration include adding words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)); adding insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claims 1, 10, and 15 further recite a processor, a memory device, and a display device, yet these are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than in name only) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
The displaying steps of the game are deemed to be data gathering and data presentation for the use of the judicial exception and similarly are recited at a high level of generality. Thus, these limitations are a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g), See also selecting a particular source and type of data to be manipulated where “Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Furthermore, the additional elements do not 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. Accordingly, Claims 1, 10, 15, and their dependent claims as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and these claims are directed to the judicial exception. Thus, Claims 1-20 lack the eligibility requirements of Step 2 Prong II.
Step 2B
Finally, under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements:
• add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present (MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present (MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo, April 20, 2018). Thus, the additional elements evaluated under Step 2A are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Independent Claims 1, 10, and 15 do not recite additional elements, individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the lack of a practical application, the additional elements in the claim of a processor, a memory device, and a display device, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components used as tools. These additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable a game to be conducted by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and storing data, (ii) automating mental tasks and (iii) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Further, under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Here, the displaying steps of the claims are deemed to be data gathering and data presentation extra-solution activity. Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that these limitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) and then to present or display said information is well known as in presenting offers and gathering statistics (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii). Accordingly, a conclusion that the step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. Therefore, these limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and do not amount to significantly more. Thus, Claims 1, 10, and 15 remain ineligible.
Dependent Claims are ineligible and lack a practical application. They further recite extra-solution activities and further define the abstract idea of the independent claims.
Claims 2-9 inherit the same abstract idea as Claim 1.
Claims 11-14 inherit the same abstract idea as Claim 10.
Claims 16-20 inherit the same abstract idea as Claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “… an indication of an improper completion of the run based on the tiles… in line 25. This phrase is indefinite because it is unclear what conditions constitute improper completion. Does it mean: missing tiles? Incorrect tiles? Partial completion? Dependent claims 2-9 inherits this discrepancy by nature of their dependencies. Examiner has interpreted this to mean partial completion. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0182203 A1 to Chan et al in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0100002 A1 to McCormick.
Regarding Claim 1, Chan discloses a gaming system comprising:
a processor (fig. 1A, para. [0093] discloses gaming machine with a processor); and
a memory device (fig. 1A, para. [0093]) that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
cause a display, by a display device, of an indication of a hand (figs. 7A-7E1);
cause a display, by the display device, of different runs of the hand, and for each run, a tile application area associated with that run and an indication of the tiles required to complete the run (figs. 7A-7E1, paras. [0193-[0195] discloses play of the game and different runs of hand in a tile application area from fig. 7A to fig. 7A1 (depicts accumulation area of tiles));
cause a display, by the display device, of a tile accumulation area (fig. 7A – 7A1 depicts accumulation area once tiles are locked/selected);
cause a display, by the display device, for each of the displayed tiles, of an indication of whether the tile is accumulated in the tile accumulation area or the tile is discarded (figs. 7A-7E1, paras. [0193]-[0203]);
cause a display, by the display device, for the displayed tiles in the tile accumulation area, of placements of the tiles into the tile application areas associated with the runs (figs. 7A-7E1, paras. [0193]-[0203]);
cause a display, by the display device, for each of a plurality of the runs, an indication of a proper completion of the run based on the tiles placed in the tile application area associated with the run (figs. 7A-7E1, paras. [0195]-[0203]);
cause a display, by the display device, for one of the runs, an indication of an improper completion of the run based on the tiles placed in the tile application area associated with the run (figs. 7A-7E1 depicts play of the game and how tiles are placed as selection is made, paras [0195]-[0205] discloses outcome of the game and when tile selection is completed and you see different stages along the way); and
cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of a completion of the hand after all of the indications of the completions of all of the runs (paras [0195]-[0205]).
However, Chan does not explicitly disclose:
cause a display, by the display device, of symbol display elements;
cause a display, by the display device, of activations of the symbol display elements;
cause a display, by the display device, of tiles associated with the activations of the symbol display elements.
In a related invention, McCormick discloses a gaming system in which:
cause a display, by the display device, of symbol display elements (paras. [0016]-[0018] discloses the display of symbol display elements);
cause a display, by the display device, of activations of the symbol display elements (paras. [0016]-[0018]);
cause a display, by the display device, of tiles associated with the activations of the symbol display elements (paras. [0016]-[0018]).
Chan discloses a method of interaction between a machine and a player or a plurality of players. McCormick discloses activating awards based on symbol accumulation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Chan with the disclosed activation and symbol display/accumulation features of McCormick in order to provide enhanced game play incentive opportunities and player engagement during game play.
Regarding Claim 2, Chan in view of McCormick discloses the gaming system of Claim 1, wherein the tiles are mahjong tiles (Chan, figures 5A-7E1).
Regarding Claim 3, Chan in view of McCormick discloses the gaming system of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, by the display device, for each run, of an indication of an award associated with that run (Chan, paras. [0077]-[0084], [0197], [0198] discloses awards to the players).
Regarding Claim 4, Chan in view of McCormick discloses the gaming system of Claim 3, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, by the display device, for each run that is properly completed, of an indication that the award associated with that run is unlocked (Chan, paras. [0077]-[0084], [0197], [0198] discloses awards to the players).
Regarding Claim 5, Chan in view of McCormick discloses the gaming system of Claim 3, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, by the display device, for each run that is properly completed, of an indication that the award associated with that run is provided to the player (Chan, paras. [0077]-[0084], [0197], [0198] discloses awards to the players).
Regarding Claim 6, Chan in view of McCormick discloses the gaming system of Claim 3, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, by the display device, for the run that is improperly completed, of an indication that the award associated with that run is not unlocked (Chan, paras. [0077]-[0084], [0197], [0198] discloses awards to the players).
Regarding Claim 7, Chan in view of McCormick discloses the gaming system of Claim 3, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, by the display device, for the run that is improperly completed, of an indication that the award associated with that run is not provided to the player (Chan, paras. [0077]-[0092], [0197], [0198] discloses awards to the players).
Regarding Claim 8, Chan in view of McCormick discloses the gaming system of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of a reduced award associated with the hand based on the improper completion of the run (Chan, paras. [0077]-[0092], [0197], [0198] discloses awards to the players).
Regarding Claim 9, Chan in view of McCormick discloses the gaming system of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of an award associated with the hand regardless of the improper completion of the run (Chan, paras. [0077]-[0092], [0197], [0198] discloses awards to the players for different types of scores received).
Regarding Claim 10, Chan discloses a gaming system comprising:
a processor (fig. 1A, para. [0093] discloses gaming machine with a processor); and
a memory device (fig. 1A, para. [0093]) that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
cause a display, by a display device, of an indication of a hand comprising different runs, and for each run an indication of any tiles required to complete the run (figs. 7A-7E1, paras. [0193-[0195] discloses play of the game and different runs of hand in a tile application area from fig. 7A to fig. 7A1 (depicts accumulation area of tiles));
cause a display, by the display device, for each of the displayed tiles, of an indication of whether the tile is accumulated or the tile is discarded (figs. 7A-7E1, paras. [0136], [0193]-[0203]);
cause a display, by the display device, for the accumulated tiles, of placements of the tiles in association with the runs (figs. 7A-7E1, paras. [0193]-[0203]);
cause a display, by the display device, for one or more of the runs, an indication of a completion of the run based on the tiles associated with the run (figs. 7A-7E1, paras. [0195]-[0203]);
cause a display, by the display device, for one or more of the runs, an indication of a bypass of the run (figs. 7A-7E1, paras. [0195]-[0203]); and
cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of a completion of the hand after all of the indications of the completions and/or bypasses of all of the runs (figs. 7A-7E1, paras. [0136], [0195]-[0203]).
However, Chan does not explicitly disclose:
cause a display, by the display device, of symbol display elements;
cause a display, by the display device, of activations of the symbol display elements;
cause a display, by the display device, of tiles associated with the activations of the symbol display elements.
In a related invention, McCormick discloses
cause a display, by the display device, of symbol display elements (paras. [0016]-[0018] discloses the display of symbol display elements);
cause a display, by the display device, of activations of the symbol display elements (paras. [0016]-[0018]);
cause a display, by the display device, of tiles associated with the activations of the symbol display elements (paras. [0016]-[0018]).
Chan discloses a method of interaction between a machine and a player or a plurality of players. McCormick discloses activating awards based on symbol accumulation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Chan with the disclosed activation and symbol display/accumulation features of McCormick in order to provide enhanced game play incentive opportunities and player engagement during game play.
Regarding Claim 11, Chan in view of McCormick discloses the gaming system of Claim 10, wherein the tiles are mahjong tiles (Chan, figs. 5-7E1).
Regarding Claim 12, Chan in view of McCormick discloses the gaming system of Claim 10, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, by the display device, for each completed run, of an indication of an award associated with that run, and for each bypassed run, an indication of no award provided based on the bypass of that run (Chan, paras. [0077]-[0084], [0197], [0198] discloses awards to the players).
Regarding Claim 13, Chan in view of McCormick discloses the gaming system of Claim 10, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, by the display device, for each completed run, of an indication of an unlocked award associated with that run, and for each bypassed run, an indication of no unlocked award provided based on the bypass of that run (Chan, paras. [0077]-[0084], [0197], [0198] discloses awards to the players).
Regarding Claim 14, Chan in view of McCormick discloses the gaming system of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of a reduced award associated with the hand based on the bypassed run (Chan, paras. [0077]-[0084], [0197], [0198] discloses awards to the players).
Regarding Claim 15, Chan discloses a gaming system comprising:
a processor (fig. 1A, para. [0093] discloses gaming machine with a processor); and
a memory device (fig. 1A, para. [0093]) that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
cause a display, by a display device, of an indication of a hand comprising different runs, and for each run an indication of any tiles required to complete the run (figs. 7A-7E1, paras. [0193-[0195] discloses play of the game and different runs of hand in a tile application area from fig. 7A to fig. 7A1 (depicts accumulation area of tiles));
cause a sequential display, by the display device, of each of a plurality of different tiles (figs. 7A-7E1 depicts play of the game and how tiles are placed as selection is made, paras [0136], [0193]-[0205] discloses outcome of the game and when tile selection is completed and you see different stages along the way; [0123] discloses on initial drawing of tiles by the machine, the drawn tiles are placed sequentially in the tile distribution matrix according to the sequence of drawing, that is, the sequence that the tiles are drawn from the deck);
cause a display, by the display device, for each of the displayed tiles, of an indication of whether the tile is accumulated or the tile is discarded, wherein a limited quantity of tiles can be accumulated at any one time (figs. 7A-7E1 depicts play of the game and how tiles are placed as selection is made, paras [0136], [0193]-[0205] discloses outcome of the game and when tile selection is completed and you see different stages along the way);
cause a display, by the display device, for the accumulated tiles, of placements of the tiles in association with the runs, wherein for each placement of a tile in association with one of the runs, the quantity of accumulated tiles is reduced (figs. 7A-7E1 depicts play of the game and how tiles are placed as selection is made, paras [0136], [0193]-[0205] discloses outcome of the game and when tile selection is completed and you see different stages along the way); and
cause a display, by the display device, for each of the runs, either an indication of a completion of the run based on the tiles associated with the run and the required tiles for the run, or an indication of a bypass of the run based on the tiles associated with the run and the required tiles for the run (figs. 7A-7E1 depicts play of the game and how tiles are placed as selection is made, paras [0136], [0193]-[0205] discloses outcome of the game and when tile selection is completed and you see different stages along the way); and
cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of a completion of the hand after all of the indications of the completions and/or bypasses of all of the runs (paras [0136], [0195]-[0205]).
However, Chan does not disclose:
cause a display, by the display device, of symbol display elements.
In a related invention, McCormick discloses a gaming system in which:
cause a display, by the display device, of symbol display elements (paras. [0016]-[0018] discloses the display of symbol display elements);
Chan discloses a method of interaction between a machine and a player or a plurality of players. McCormick discloses activating awards based on symbol accumulation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Chan with the disclosed activation and symbol display/accumulation features of McCormick in order to provide enhanced game play incentive opportunities and player engagement during game play.
Regarding Claim 16, Chan in view of McCormick discloses the gaming system of Claim 15, wherein the tiles are mahjong tiles (Chan, figs. 5A-7E1).
Regarding Claim 17, Chan in view of McCormick discloses the gaming system of Claim 15, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, by the display device, for each completed run, of an indication of an award associated with that run, and for each bypassed run, an indication of no award provided based on the bypass of that run (Chan, paras. [0077]-[0092], [0197], [0198] discloses awards to the players for different types of scores received; [0136]).
Regarding Claim 18, Chan in view of McCormick discloses the gaming system of Claim 15, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, by the display device, for each completed run, of an indication of an unlocked award associated with that run, and for each bypassed run, an indication of no unlocked award provided based on the bypass of that run (Chan, paras. [0077]-[0092], [0197], [0198] discloses awards to the players for different types of scores received; [0136]).
Regarding Claim 19, Chan in view of McCormick discloses the gaming system of Claim 15, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of a reduced award associated with the hand based on one or more of the bypassed run (Chan, paras. [0077]-[0092], [0197], [0198] discloses awards to the players for different types of scores received; [0136]).
Regarding Claim 20, Chan in view of McCormick discloses the gaming system of Claim 15, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of a reduced award associated with the hand based all of the runs being bypassed (Chan, paras. [0077]-[0092], [0197], [0198] discloses awards to the players for different types of scores received; [0136]).
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are examined above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUNA-KAY HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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.
/S.N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715 /DAVID L LEWIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715