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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement entered January 21st, 2025 has been considered. A copy of the cited statement(s) including the notation indicating its respective consideration is attached for the Applicant's records.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As summarized in MPEP § 2106, subject matter eligibility is determined based on a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The instant application includes claims concerning a computer implemented method (i.e., a process) in claims 1-19 and a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e. a manufacture) in claims 20-22.
In Prong 1 of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon.
In particular exemplary presented claim 1 includes the following underlined claim elements:
Claim 1: A computer-implemented method of generating a customized electronic game, the method comprising:
displaying, via a user interface displayed on a user device associated with a user, indications of a plurality of game types, wherein each game type of the plurality of game types corresponds to a set of game rules, and wherein the user interface is configured to generate an electronic game;
receiving, via the user interface, a selection of a game type of the plurality of game types for the electronic game;
displaying, via the user interface, indications of a plurality of game themes, wherein each game theme of the plurality of game themes corresponds to a conceptual game feature;
receiving, via the user interface, a selection of a game theme of the plurality of game themes for the electronic game;
generating graphic elements for the electronic game based on the selected game type and the selected game theme, wherein the graphic elements are associated with a graphic style based on at least one user attribute of the user;
generating the electronic game using the generated graphic elements and the set of game rules corresponding to the selected game type; and
providing the generated electronic game to the user device.
The claim elements underlined above, concern the court enumerated abstract ideas of Mental Processes including observation, evaluation, and judgement because the claims are directed to series of steps for receiving user inputs, evaluating/judging the inputs and providing an output based therein as well as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including managing personal behavior including interactions between people including social activities and following rules or instructions because the claims set forth the interactions involving one or more parties in the context of a game presentation and interface.
As the exemplary claim recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon it is further considered under Prong 2 of Step 2A to determine if the claim recites additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Wherein the practical applications are set forth by MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) are broadly directed to: the improvement in technology, use of a particular machine and applying or using the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a technology environment. Limitations that explicitly do not support the integration of the judicial exception in to a practical application are defined by MPEP 2106.05(f-h) and include merely using a computer to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology environment or field of use.
With respect to the above the claimed invention is not integrated into a practical application because it does not meet the criteria of MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) and although it is performed on a user device, and a computer readable medium it is not directed to a particular machine because the hardware elements are not linked to a specific device/machine and would reasonably include other devices such as generic computers, smart phones, game consoles, and the like. Accordingly, the claims limitations are not indicative of the integration of the identified judicial exception into a practical application, and the consideration of patent eligibility continues to step 2B.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea(s) per se including a user device, and a computer readable medium amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structures that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry per the applicant’s description (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0003], [0057], [0059]). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, as presented the claimed invention when considered as a whole amounts to the mere instructions to implement an abstract idea [i.e. software or equivalent process steps] on a generic computer [i.e. controller or processor] without causing the improvement of the generic computer or another technology field.
The applicant’s specification is further noted as supporting the above rejection wherein neither the abstract idea nor the associated generic computer structure as claimed are disclosed as improving another technological field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, or meaningfully linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0003], [0057], [0059]). In particular the applicant’s specification only contains computing elements which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and accordingly their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art per the requirements of 37 CFR 1.71. Were these elements of the applicant’s invention to be presented in the future as non-conventional and non-generic involvement of a computing structure, such would stand at odds with the disclosure of the applicant's invention as found in their specification as originally filed.
“[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . .a computer,’ . . . that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132S. Ct. at 1301). In this case, the claims recite a generic computer implementation of the covered abstract idea.
The remaining presented claims 2-22 incorporate substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with respect to the exemplary claim 1, while the additional elements recited by the additional claims including one or more of a user device, a computer system, and a computer readable medium as respectively presented that when considered both individually and as a whole in the respective combinations of the additional claims are not sufficient to support patent eligibility under prong 2 of step 2A or step 2B for the reasons set forth above with respect to the exemplary claim 1 and further present substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with reflection to exemplary claim 1 above and therefore are similarly directed to or otherwise include abstract ideas.
Therefore, the listed claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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, 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.
Claims 1-4, and 6-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowe et al (US 2005/0170890) in view of Robbins et al (US 9,196,113).
Claim 1: The combination of Rowe & Robbins teaches a computer-implemented method of generating a customized electronic game, the method comprising:
displaying, via a user interface displayed on a user device associated with a user, indications of a plurality of game types, wherein each game type of the plurality of game types corresponds to a set of game rules, and wherein the user interface is configured to generate an electronic game (Rowe Figs 9-11; Elements 270, 271, 274, 275; Paragraphs [0077]-[0078];);
receiving, via the user interface, a selection of a game type of the plurality of game types for the electronic game (Rowe Figs 9-11; Elements 270, 271, 274, 275; Paragraphs [0077]-[0078];);
displaying, via the user interface, indications of a plurality of game themes, wherein each game theme of the plurality of game themes corresponds to a conceptual game feature (Rowe Figs 9-11; Elements 270, 273 Paragraphs [0077]-[0078];);
receiving, via the user interface, a selection of a game theme of the plurality of game themes for the electronic game (Rowe Figs 9-11; Elements 270, 273 Paragraphs [0077]-[0078];);
generating graphic elements for the electronic game based on the selected game type and the selected game theme, wherein the graphic elements are associated with a graphic style based on at least one user attribute of the user (Rowe Paragraphs [0068]-[0069]; Robbins Fig 3; 7; Col 4:62-5:29, 9:13-35);
generating the electronic game using the generated graphic elements and the set of game rules corresponding to the selected game type (Rowe Paragraphs [0068]-[0069]; Robbins Fig 3; 7; Col 4:62-5:29, 9:13-35); and
providing the generated electronic game to the user device (Rowe Abstract; Robbins Fig 3; 7; Abstract).
Rowe teaches the invention as cited above an including the customizing of games presented to a user based on game type and desired theme. While Rowe is arguably silent regarding the selection of game style and the generation of game based on player preference selections including the use of menus and audio preferences, in an analogous invention Robbins teaches that these features were known before the earliest effective filing date (Robbins Abstract; Fig 3; 4, 7; Col 4:62-5:55, 9:13-35, 11:10-41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have incorporated the selection of game style and the generation of game based on player preference selections including the use of menus and audio preferences, as taught by Robbins in the manner of providing customized games taught by Rowe in order to provide the predictable and expected advantage of enabling the modification of games to meet the individual preferences of users even in the case where those preferences do not align with a known existing game as taught by Rowe (Rowe Paragraph [0062]).
Claim 2: The combination of Rowe & Robbins teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one user attribute comprises selection of the graphic style, the method further comprising:
displaying, via the user interface, indications of a plurality of graphic styles, wherein the indications of the graphic styles each comprise a representative stylistic image illustrating a corresponding graphic style, wherein the plurality of graphic styles includes the selected graphic style, and wherein the representative stylistic image is not included in the generated graphic elements; and
receiving, via the user interface, a selection of the selected graphic style (-understood as encompassing the selection of graphic styles from a menu of elements not currently defining a portion of the game- Robbins Abstract; Fig 3; Elm 340; Col 4:62-5:29).
Claim 3: The combination of Rowe & Robbins teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one user attribute is determined based on a user profile of the user (-age based determinations- Rowe Paragraph [0069]).
Claim 4: The combination of Rowe & Robbins teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
selecting for display the plurality of game types or the plurality of game themes based on the at least one user attribute (-age based determinations- Rowe Paragraph [0069]).
Claim 6: The combination of Rowe & Robbins teaches the method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the electronic game or the graphic elements are generated in real time (-Wherein content is provided responsive to selection and hence is understood to be equivalently to being generated in real time -Rowe Figure 4; Paragraph [0055]; Robbins Fig 7; Col 9:13-35).
Claim 7: The combination of Rowe & Robbins teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the user device comprises an electronic slot machine (Rowe Paragraphs [0040]-[0041]; Figures 2-2A).
Claim 8: The combination of Rowe & Robbins teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
displaying the generated graphic elements (Rowe Paragraphs [0089], [0092]-[0093]; Figure 14); and
receiving a selection of at least some of the generated graphic elements, wherein the generated electronic game includes the at least some of the generated graphic elements (Robbins Abstract; Fig 3; Elm 340; Col 4:62-5:29).
Claim 9: The combination of Rowe & Robbins teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a quantity of the graphic elements is determined based on the set of game rules (-Describing the limiting of symbols to the size of the Slot machine reel locations- Rowe Paragraphs [0040], [0089], [0092]-[0093]; Figure 14 & Robbins Fig 3).
Claim 10: The combination of Rowe & Robbins teaches the method of claim 1, wherein generating the graphic elements includes retrieving stored images from an image catalog for inclusion in the graphic elements (Robbins Abstract; Fig 3; Elm 340; Col 4:62-5:29).
Claim 11: The combination of Rowe & Robbins teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a selection of an audio element for the electronic game, wherein the generated electronic game includes the selected audio element (-game sounds- Robbins Col 4:62-5:55).
Claim 12: The combination of Rowe & Robbins teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
modifying at least one game rule in the set of game rules responsive to a user input or based on the at least one user attribute (Rowe Paragraphs [0068]- [0069], [0076]).
Claim 13: The combination of Rowe & Robbins teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
concurrently displaying, via the user interface, a representative electronic game while the electronic game is being generated (-understood as the co-presentation of menus- Robbins Figs. 1a, 1b, 3, 5b).
Claim 14: The combination of Rowe & Robbins teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the generated graphic elements comprise a set of symbols for a slot machine-type game (Rowe Paragraphs [0040]-[0041]; Figures 2-2A & Robbins Fig. 3).
Claim 15: The combination of Rowe & Robbins teaches the method of claim 1, wherein generating the electronic game includes generating a textual element or a plot element for the electronic game (-Understood as alternatively describing the use sports, gameshow, movie themes as taught- Rowe Paragraph [0069]).
Claim 16: The combination of Rowe & Robbins teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the set of game rules is associated with a stacked wild, wild, or scatter style of game play (-understood as implicit to the modification of paytables/payouts- Rowe Paragraphs [0032], [0054], [0062], [0076] & Robbins Col 10:11-41).
Claim 17: The combination of Rowe & Robbins teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the set of game rules is associated with a volatility, wherein the volatility includes a frequency of winning results, a magnitude of winning results, or both (-understood as implicit to the modification of paytables/payouts- Rowe Paragraphs [0032], [0054], [0062], [0076] & Robbins Col 10:11-41).
Claim 18: The combination of Rowe & Robbins teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the set of game rules includes game rules associated with a type of bonus play (Rowe Paragraph [0093]; Robbins Col 13:20-28).
Claim 19: The combination of Rowe & Robbins teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the set of symbols includes one or more of letter symbols, graphic symbols, or bonus symbols (Rowe Paragraphs [0040], [0042], [0089]; Figure 14).
Claim 20: The combination of Rowe & Robbins teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium carrying instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising:
computing a weighted score associated with a plurality of game elements in a catalog, wherein the weighted score is based on metadata tags associated with the plurality of game elements and one or more user attributes (-Describing the use of weighted preferences- Rowe Paragraphs [0070]-[0071]);
selecting a subset of the plurality of game elements based on the weighted score (Rowe Paragraphs [0070]-[0071]);
retrieving the subset of the plurality of game elements from the catalog Rowe Figs 9-11; Elements 270, 271, 274, 275; Paragraphs [0077]-[0078];
rendering the retrieved subset of the plurality of game elements for inclusion in an electronic game based at least in part on the weighted score (Rowe Paragraphs [0070]-[0071]); and
generating the electronic game using the rendered subset of the plurality of game elements(Rowe Abstract; Robbins Fig 3; 7; Abstract).
Rowe teaches the invention as cited above an including the customizing of games presented to a user based on weighted preferences. While Rowe is arguably silent regarding the generation of a game based on the weighted preferences store in a catalogue/menu format in an analogous invention Robbins teaches that these features were known before the earliest effective filing date (Robbins Abstract; Fig 3; 4, 7; Col 4:62-5:55, 9:13-35, 11:10-41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have incorporated the generation of a game based on the weighted preferences store in a catalogue/menu format as taught by Robbins, in the manner of providing customized games taught by Rowe in order to provide the predictable and expected advantage of enabling the modification of games to meet the individual preferences of users even in the case where those preferences do not align with a known existing game as taught by Rowe (Rowe Paragraph [0062]).
Claim 21: The combination of Rowe & Robbins teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 20, wherein the operations further comprise:
determining hardware capabilities of a user device, wherein the subset of the plurality of game elements is rendered based at least in part on the determined hardware capabilities (-Wherein it is understood as implicit that a device cannot present game elements that are outside of the capabilities of a game machine to present based on configuration- Rowe Paragraphs [0040]-[0041], [0094]).
Claims 5 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowe et al (US 2005/0170890) in view of Robbins et al (US 9,196,113) as applied to at least claims 1-4 and 6-21 above and further in view of Abel et al (US 2024/0201833).
Claim 5: The combination of Rowe, Robbins & Abel teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the graphic elements are generated using an artificial intelligence model (Abel Abstract; Paragraphs [0037], [0041]-[0042]).
The combination of Rowe & Robbins teach the customization of game content based on user preferences and weighted analysis as cited herein above. While the combination of Rowe & Robbins does not teach the use of an artificial intelligence model or the location of players in implementing a player customization, these features are taught in the analogous prior art teaching of Abel (Abel Abstract; Paragraphs [0037], [0041]-[0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized an artificial intelligence model or the location of players in implementing a player customization as taught by Abel in the combination of Rowe & Robbins, because such would have offered the predictable and expected advantage of preventing customizations where such would conflict with local copyright or trademarks as taught by Abel (Abel Abstract; Paragraph [0042]).
Claim 22: The combination of Rowe, Robbins & Abel teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 20, wherein the one or more user attributes include a location of a user or a user device (Abel Abstract; Paragraph [0037], [0041]-[0042]).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lark et al US 7,722,453) teaches an interactive game playing preferences; and
McIntyre et al (US 10,134,228) teaches the customization of game play through personal gaming device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E MOSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-4451. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:45-3:45.
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.
ROBERT E. MOSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/ROBERT E MOSSER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights