Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
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 judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes and/ or certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
More specifically, regarding Step 1, of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a machine, process, and/or an article of manufacturer, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a – Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Claims 1-20 recite managing an electronic game through rules for displaying and accumulating symbols and amounts across multiple plays. For example:
Claim 1 recites displaying reels with subsets for qualifier and output symbols, adding output amounts to qualifiers over first and second plays, with qualifiers persisting.
Dependent claims add details such as animations (Claims 2-3), reel positions (Claims 4-5), multiple plays with random increases (Claims 6-7), additional qualifiers in subsequent plays (Claim 8), and awarding totals at the end (Claim 9).
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describe rules for conducting and managing a wagering game, which is a "certain method of organizing human activity". Specifically, a commercial interaction in the form of a business relation or sales activity (e.g., managing bets and payouts in a game of chance) and/or fundamental economic practices (e.g., accumulating and awarding values based on game outcomes). This is analogous to:
Managing a game of Bingo in Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 Fed. Appx. 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014), where claims for storing, assigning, and verifying Bingo numbers were held abstract as organizing human activity.
Rules for a wagering game using physical cards in In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016), found abstract as a fundamental economic practice akin to hedging in Bilski.
Rules for a dice game in In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2018), rejected as abstract printed matter (rules) without eligibility-conferring elements.
The recited game mechanics (e.g., persisting qualifiers, adding outputs, animations to communicate additions) are merely rules that could be performed mentally or with pen and paper in a non-electronic game, or as part of human-managed wagering. The focus is on the abstract rules themselves, not on any technological improvement. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2a – Prong 2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition - see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing – see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea- see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1-20 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements beyond the abstract idea includes a generic "electronic gaming device" with "at least one memory" storing instructions and "at least one processor" executing them to cause displays and operations. Displaying reels, symbols, animations, and amounts on a generic display. These elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to applying the abstract game rules on a generic computer (e.g., using the processor to "cause display" of outcomes). There is no improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, nor any specific technological solution to a problem in gaming technology (e.g., no novel hardware, no enhancement to display technology, no integration with specific sensors or networks). Instead, the claims use the computer merely as a tool to automate the abstract game management, similar to the generic computer implementation in Planet Bingo and In re Smith. Animations (Claims 2-3) are extra-solution activity (merely communicating results) without technological specificity. Reel subsets (Claims 4-5) are part of the abstract rules, not a technological integration. Multiple plays and random determinations (Claims 6-8) are conventional game mechanics. Awarding totals (Claim 9) is post-solution activity.
Viewed individually and as an ordered combination, the claims do not: (1) improve computer functionality; (2) apply the idea with particular machines beyond generics; (3) transform matter; or (4) provide a meaningful limit beyond the idea itself. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(h).
For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The elements (processor, memory, display of reels/symbols/animations) are well-understood, routine, and conventional in electronic gaming machines, as evidenced by generic computing components performing basic functions (storing/executing instructions, displaying outputs), akin to those in Alice (generic computer for settlement risk mitigation).
Conventional hold-and-spin or accumulation mechanics in gaming, as seen in prior art like US 2017/0372558 A1 (grouping and modifying value symbols) and US 2019/0051097 A1 (holding configurable symbols while adding values).
Animations as routine visual feedback in games, per In re Guldenaar (printed matter and visuals do not add eligibility).
The specification describes the invention as a game feature without detailing non-conventional technology, confirming the elements are generic (e.g., para. [0001]-[0005] discuss general EGMs). As a whole, the claims append well-understood elements to the abstract idea without an inventive concept.
Consequently, consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by YOU (US 2017/0372558 A1).
1. YOU discloses an electronic gaming device comprising: at least one memory with instructions stored thereon; and at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to (Fig. 1, 2):
cause display of a plurality of reels for an electronic game, the plurality of reels comprising a first reel subset where qualifier symbols are eligible to be provided and a second reel subset where output symbols are eligible to be provided (an electronic gaming machine with simulated reels in a matrix/array where subsets of positions/reels can hold value symbols (qualifiers) while others spin/replace with new symbols), (Fig. 4A-4B), [0040]-[0042];
for a first play of the electronic game: cause a first qualifier symbol to be displayed on a first reel of the first reel subset; cause one or more first output symbols to be displayed on the second reel subset; and cause one or more first output amounts associated with the one or more first output symbols to be added to the first qualifier symbol (initial value symbols (first qualifier) held in a group, new value symbols (first outputs) added if they appear, with values (amounts) increasing/modifying the existing held symbol's value), (Fig. 4A-4B), [0040]-[0042];
for a second play of the electronic game: cause a second qualifier symbol to be displayed on a second reel of the first reel subset while the first qualifier symbol remains displayed on the first reel subset; cause one or more second output symbols to be displayed on the second reel subset; and cause one or more second output amounts associated with the one or more second output symbols to be added to the first qualifier symbol and the second qualifier symbol (persistence of held value symbols (qualifiers) across multiple spins/plays, addition of new value symbols (second qualifiers and outputs) to the group, with values modified/added to all existing held symbols in the group), (Fig. 4C-4E), [0043]-[0049].
2. YOU discloses the electronic gaming device of Claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to cause display of an animation between the one or more first output symbols and the first qualifier symbol to communicate that the one or more first output amounts associated with the one or more first output symbols are being added to the first qualifier symbol (animations such as borders expanding around the group and symbols transforming to show value additions/modifications), (Fig. 4A-4E), [0042], [0044].
3. YOU discloses the electronic gaming device of Claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to cause display of animations simultaneously between the one or more second output symbols and the first qualifier symbol and the one or more second output symbols and the second qualifier symbol to communicate that the one or more second output amounts are being added to the first qualifier symbol and the second qualifier symbol (simultaneous group expansion and fusing animations for multiple held symbols when new values are added/modified across the group), (Fig. 4A-4E), [0042], [0044].
4. YOU discloses the electronic gaming device of Claim 1, wherein the first reel subset comprises a leftmost reel of the plurality of reels and a rightmost reel of the plurality of reels (5-reel matrix where any positions, including leftmost and rightmost reels, can hold value symbols in subsets; the feature applies to the full plurality), (Fig. 4A-4E).
5. YOU discloses the electronic gaming device of Claim 4, wherein the second reel subset comprises reels of the plurality of reels between the leftmost reel and the rightmost reel (intervening reels in the matrix as part of the plurality), (Fig. 4A-4E).
6. YOU discloses the electronic gaming device of Claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to provide the electronic game for a number of plays, the number of plays including the first play and the second play (a predetermined number of spins/plays, e.g., 3, with multiple plays including holding and adding), [0041]-[0043].
7. YOU discloses the electronic gaming device of Claim 6, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to randomly determine whether to increase the number of plays in response to at least one of the first qualifier symbol being displayed for the first play or the second qualifier symbol being displayed for the second play (random appearance of new value symbols (qualifiers) during plays, which resets/increases the number of remaining spins/plays), [0041]-[0043].
8. YOU discloses the electronic gaming device of Claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to, for a third play of the electronic game: cause a third qualifier symbol to be displayed on one of the first reel of the first reel subset or the second reel of the first reel subset while the first qualifier symbol and the second qualifier symbol remain displayed on the first reel subset; cause one or more third output symbols to be displayed on the second reel subset; and cause one or more third output amounts associated with the one or more third output symbols to be added to the first qualifier symbol, the second qualifier symbol, and the third qualifier symbol (successive plays with additional value symbols (third qualifiers) added to the persisting group, new outputs modifying values of all held symbols), (Fig. 4A-4E).
9. YOU discloses the electronic gaming device of Claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to, after a last play of the electronic game, cause total output amounts accumulated for the first qualifier symbol and the second qualifier symbol to be provided, the total output amounts including the one or more first output amounts and the one or more second output amounts for the first qualifier symbol and the one or more second output amounts for the second qualifier symbol (awarding the cumulative total of all modified/accumulated values from held symbols at the end of the feature when spins are exhausted or the matrix is full), (Fig. 4E), [0047].
10-18. YOU discloses at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: cause display of a plurality of reels for an electronic game, the plurality of reels comprising a first reel subset where qualifier symbols are eligible to be provided and a second reel subset where output symbols are eligible to be provided; for a first play of the electronic game: cause a first qualifier symbol to be displayed on a first reel of the first reel subset; cause one or more first output symbols to be displayed on the second reel subset; and cause one or more first output amounts associated with the one or more first output symbols to be added to the first qualifier symbol; for a second play of the electronic game: cause a second qualifier symbol to be displayed on a second reel of the first reel subset while the first qualifier symbol remains displayed on the first reel subset; cause one or more second output symbols to be displayed on the second reel subset; and cause one or more second output amounts associated with the one or more second output symbols to be added to the first qualifier symbol and the second qualifier symbol as similarly discussed above.
19-20. YOU discloses a method of electronic gaming implemented by at least one processor in communication with at least one memory, the method comprising: causing display of a plurality of reels for an electronic game, the plurality of reels comprising a first reel subset where qualifier symbols are eligible to be provided and a second reel subset where output symbols are eligible to be provided; for a first play of the electronic game: causing a first qualifier symbol to be displayed on a first reel of the first reel subset; causing one or more first output symbols to be displayed on the second reel subset; and causing one or more first output amounts associated with the one or more first output symbols to be added to the first qualifier symbol; for a second play of the electronic game: causing a second qualifier symbol to be displayed on a second reel of the first reel subset while the first qualifier symbol remains displayed on the first reel subset; causing one or more second output symbols to be displayed on the second reel subset; and causing one or more second output amounts associated with the one or more second output symbols to be added to the first qualifier symbol and the second qualifier symbol as similarly discussed above.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached USPTO form PTO-892.
Filing of New or Amended Claims
The examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the original disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. See Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263, 191 USPQ at 97 (“[T]he PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). However, when filing an amendment an applicant should show support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims. See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 (“Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”). Please see MPEP 2163 (II) 3. (b)
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SENG H LIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3301. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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 L. 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.
/Seng H Lim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715