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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 01, 2021 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Applicant should note that the large number of references in the attached IDS have been considered by the examiner in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. See MPEP 609.05(b). Applicant is requested to point out any particular references in the IDS which they believe may be of particular relevance to the instant claimed invention in response to this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitations "… estimate of financial risk …” It is unclear what constitutes a “financial risk” and how the “estimate” is calculated. The specification fails to provide sufficient details on how this is being determined. Furthermore, the claims recite “one or more messages collectively …” It is again unclear whether the messages are transmitted to the gaming platform or the user device or even both and which message performs which function. As a result, claims 1-20 are rejected.
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 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim(s) 1, 11 and 20 held to claim an abstract idea, and is/are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The rationale for this finding is explained below:
Claims 1, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “providing a bonus game, receiving trigger events, selecting stop positions, changing awards associated with stop positions.”
The limitations of:
providing instructions, by a gaming system that includes one or more servers, to a gaming device for causing the gaming device to provide a first bonus game associated with one or more first awards and one or more second awards to be displayed on one or more displays of a gaming device display system, the first bonus game including a depiction of a first construct having a plurality of first stop positions that are each associated with an award selected from the group consisting of: the first awards and the second awards, wherein the first construct includes graphical indicators of each first stop position and of the award associated with each first stop position;
(b) receiving, by the gaming system, an indication of one or more trigger events;
(c) selecting, by the gaming system, one or more of the first stop positions responsive, at least in part, to receipt of each indication of one of the one or more trigger events; and
(d) causing, by the gaming system, at least one of the one or more first stop positions that are selected in response to receipt of the indication of one of the one or more trigger events and are, at the time of such selection, associated with one of the one or more second awards to be associated with one of the one or more first awards instead.
as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or more servers,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “one or more servers” language, “providing a bonus game, receiving trigger events, selecting stop positions, changing awards associated with stop positions.” If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity (wagering game rules)” grouping of abstract ideas. Such activities are abstract ideas under USPTO guidance and case law (e.g., Alice, Electric Power Group, etc.), particularly when implemented on generic computers for economic or organizational purposes.
The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. There is no indication of a technological improvement or a technical solution to a technical problem. The claim does not recite a specific or unconventional way of a gaming system including one or more servers, one or more displays, a gaming device, etc. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform both the ranking and determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim recites conventional steps such as “providing a bonus game, receiving trigger events, selecting stop positions, changing awards associated with stop positions.” No element or combination provides a technical improvement or “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible because it is directed to an abstract idea method of organizing human activity (wagering), is not integrated into a practical application, and lacks an inventive concept beyond generic computer implementation.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,067,847 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the difference between the claims of this application and the patented claims is not that great since Applicant just replaces a gaming system by a gaming controller.“
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to omit some words because one of ordinary skill in the art would have realized that omitting and adding some words are an obvious expedient since the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963).
US Application Number: 18/766,283
US Patent Number:12,067,847 B2
A method of providing a wagering game, the method comprising:
A method of providing a wagering game on an electronic gaming system, the electronic gaming system including a game controller and one or more displays, and the method comprising:
(a) providing instructions, by a gaming system that includes one or more servers, to a gaming device for causing the gaming device to provide a first bonus game associated with one or more first awards and one or more second awards to be displayed on one or more displays of a gaming device display system, the first bonus game including a depiction of a first construct having a plurality of first stop positions that are each associated with an award selected from the group consisting of: the first awards and the second awards, wherein the first construct includes graphical indicators of each first stop position and of the award associated with each first stop position;
(a) causing, via the game controller, a first bonus game associated with one or more first awards and one or more second awards to be displayed on the one or more displays of the electronic gaming system, the first bonus game including a depiction of a first construct having a plurality of first stop positions that are each associated with an award selected from the group consisting of: the first awards and the second awards, wherein the first construct includes graphical indicators of each first stop position and of the award associated with each first stop position;
(b) receiving, by the gaming system, an indication of one or more trigger events;
(b) receiving, via the game controller, an indication of one or more trigger events;
(c) selecting, by the gaming system, one or more of the first stop positions responsive, at least in part, to receipt of each indication of one of the one or more trigger events; and
(c) selecting, by the game controller, one or more of the first stop positions responsive, at least in part, to receipt of each indication of one of the one or more trigger events; and
(d) causing, by the gaming system, at least one of the one or more first stop positions that are selected in response to receipt of the indication of one of the one or more trigger events and are, at the time of such selection, associated with one of the one or more second awards to be associated with one of the one or more first awards instead.
(d) causing, via the game controller, at least one of the one or more first stop positions that are selected in response to receipt of the indication of one of the one or more trigger events and are, at the time of such selection, associated with one of the one or more second awards to be associated with one of the one or more first awards instead.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
This Office action corrects the mistakes that were made in the first non-final action where the Examiner added some limitations that were not part of Applicant’s claim languages of this application and for that the Examiner apologizes. As a result, all claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See references cited on PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD LANEAU whose telephone number is (571)272-6784. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7-5:30 ET.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/Ronald Laneau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights