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 .
Response to Amendment
This is in response to the amendments filed on 6/25/26. Claims 1, 3 – 11, 14, and 16 – 19 have been amended. Claims 1 – 20 are pending in the current application.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: It must be determined whether the invention falls into one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claims 1 – 10, 19, and 20 are directed towards a system and a medium, (machine), and claims 11 – 18 are directed towards a method, (process), which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a:
Prong 1: It must be determined whether the invention is directed to judicially recognized exception. Claim 1 is analyzed below with limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea.
1. An electronic gaming system comprising: a display device; and a game controller in communication with the display device, the game controller including at least one processor and at least one memory, the at least one memory for storing instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the game controller to: control the display device to display a base reel game including a plurality of reels, each reel of the plurality of reels for the base reel game including a predetermined number of rows; control the plurality of reels to randomly display a game symbol of a plurality of game symbols in each row of each reel of the plurality of reels; control the display device to display a base reel game outcome based on the randomly displayed plurality of game symbols in the plurality of reels; determine that the base reel game outcome triggers a bonus reel game, the bonus reel game including at least one free spin and a plurality of metamorphic enhancement features; and determine the plurality of metamorphic enhancement features include: a grow feature for increasing a minimum grow value during the at least one free spin, the minimum grow value defining a minimum value for cash- on-reel (COR) symbols provided during the at least one free spin; and a collect feature for determining a collect value based on a plurality of COR symbols provided during the at least one free spin, wherein each COR symbol of the plurality of COR symbols is associated with a credit value of a plurality of credit values, and wherein the collect value comprises a sum of a highest credit value of the plurality of credit values and other credit values of the plurality of credit values different from the highest credit value that are multiplied based on the other credit values being lower credit values than the highest credit value.
The abstract idea is defined by the underlined portions exemplary claim 1, with substantially similar features found in claims 11 and 19. Dependent claims 2 – 10, 12 – 18, and 20 further define the abstract idea or relate to the implementation of the abstract idea. The abstract idea is defined in at least the following grouping below:
Mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment)
The claims are directed towards an abstract idea of rules for conducting a game which falls into the category of mental processes, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a gaming system comprising a set of reels and gaming symbols that presents a game to a player, wherein the game represents the exchange of consideration based on probabilities created during the dealing and displaying of randomly displayed reel and symbol outcomes. The claimed invention can be practically performed as a mental process by a human managing a game comprising reels and symbols. A human can take control of the game and make game determinations in their mind. (Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The claims are also directed towards a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more humans, which fall into the category of mental processes, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a gaming system, wherein the claims require displaying a plurality of reels and symbols. The claims further recite the triggering of a bonus game based on the outcome of a primary game, wherein the bonus game comprises at least one free spin, metamorphic enhancement features, and a grow and collect feature that determines the growth value of cash on reel symbols associated with a credit value. The claims recite instructions with these features. Here, a human can observe the displaying of reels and symbols and determine an outcome, wherein based on the state of the game with respect to the reels and symbols, a human can observe the triggering of a bonus game, at least one free spin, the metamorphic animation, the collecting and growth of the cash on reel symbols, wherein a human can then make a determination of a next step to make based on the state of the game. For example, in the event that a player is playing a slot machine game, a human can observe a reel outcome that triggers a bonus game, observe that a free spin and a plurality of cash on reel symbols have been provided, and observe the collection and increasing growth of the cash on reel symbols, wherein a human can then make a determine based on the state of the game that is favorable to the player. Therefore, since the claimed invention can practically be performed in the human mind, it represents an ineligible abstract mental process. (Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F. 3d 1307). Furthermore, the claims are also drawn to how a game is played, which represents following rules/instructions that define how a game is played.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception?
The claims recite a generic processor, display, and controller along with instructions that generates and presents a slot machine game to a player, which is viewed as no more than instructions to implement a judicial exception.
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2b: It must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim language does recite a processor, display, controller, and a plurality of reels and symbols, however, viewed as a whole, these additional elements are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art, (See Kelly et al. U.S. 2016/0093133 par. 0003 slot machine bonus games as being well-known in the art). Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejection of claims 1 -20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of claims 1 – 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the 101 rejection of claims 1 – 20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1 -20, Applicant’s disagree that “the claims recite methods of organizing human activity and mental processes”. More specifically, it is argued that “the present claims are directed to technical improvements in the technical field of electronic gaming”. While the Examiner agrees that the current claims are not directed towards organizing human activity, however, the Examiner maintains that the current claims are directed towards mental processes. As stated above, the claims recite instructions that display a plurality of reels and symbols, trigger a bonus game based on the outcome of a primary game, and provide a free spin and increasing cash on reel symbols based on the state of the bonus game. These actions related to the processor and display device can be observed and determined in the human mind. For example, nothing precludes a human observing gaming machine reels and symbols, a triggering event that triggers a bonus game, the awards, (free spin and cash on reel symbols), that are provided during the bonus game, and nothing precludes a human from determination a game decision to make based on the state of the bonus game. This process can literally be performed in the human mind, which represents an ineligible abstract mental process. (Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F. 3d 1307).
Applicants further argue that “the present claims “satisfy Step 2B as amounting to significantly more than any alleged judicial exception”. More specifically, it is argued that “a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and . . .the claim reflects the asserted improvement," which is sufficient to establish a practical application”, wherein the Applicants cite paragraphs 0024 and 0029 as disclosing said improvements. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The examples cited by the Applicants, for example, “presenting Class II and Class III game outcomes”, “storing multiple reel sets or distinct reel symbols”, “applying one or more enhancement features to the bonus reel game”, etc., are viewed by the Examiner as game rules rather than technical improvements. Merely disclosing that an electronic device and computing hardware and software performing game rules does not, as claimed, improve the functioning of computers. With respect to the Berkheimer decision, reference is made for example, (Pryzby U.S. 2004/0142747), which shows a gaming system that provides Class II and Class III outcomes, (bingo and random number generator outcomes) and bonus games as being known in the art, (see par. 0016 and par. 0004 of Pryzby). For these reasons, the Examiner maintains that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
Applicants further argue that “it is not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the art at least to perform the steps of Claim 1 of the present application”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, the current claims does not recite steps that represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field nor do the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of controlling troops, because the additional elements, terminal and server, are recited generically. For example, the claims do not recite how the “display device”, “game controller”, and “processor” solves a technical problem. Steps like storing, controlling, and determining, for example, are generic instructions to apply an abstract idea using conventional components. For these reasons, the Examiner maintains that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
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 replying 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1699. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/E.M.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/JUSTIN L MYHR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights