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 08/16/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The Drawings filed on 08/16/2024 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 following diagram is an overview of the steps involved. The examiner follows the two step-analysis, as described in MPEP 2106 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html).
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 an electronic gaming system in Claims 1-10, a method for electronic gaming in Claims 11-19, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage media in Claim 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. Under this step, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is ‘directed to’ a judicially recognized exception and does the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. .
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, representative claim 1 (and similarly recited Claims 11 and 20) recites the following (with emphasis): “1. An electronic gaming system comprising:
at least one memory with instructions stored thereon (additional element); and
at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory (additional element), wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
store, in the at least one memory, at least one primary ticket set and at least one secondary ticket set, the at least one primary ticket set including a first plurality of tickets and the at least one secondary ticket set including a second plurality of tickets;
in response to a game instance, select a first ticket from the first plurality of tickets;
determine (i) a first prize associated with the first ticket and (ii) a first facade associated with the first ticket;
cause a display device to display the first facade;
in response to the first prize including a free play, select a second ticket from the second plurality of tickets;
determine (i) a second prize associated with the second ticket and (ii) a second facade associated with the second ticket; and
cause the display device to display the second facade.”
The italicized portions of representative Claim 1, and similarly recited Claims and 11 and 20, generally encompass the abstract idea. Without the generic computer and electronic gaming structure, Independent Claim 1 recites steps/limitations that falls under abstract idea such as, for example a method of organizing human activity (i.e. managing the rules of a wagering game. Reciting which ticket to draw, what prize/value it carries, what image/façade to show and when to draw again is a set of rules for conducting/playing game. In addition, the determination and selection steps can be described as mental processes/evaluation, for example looking up a value and a label associated with a drawn item.
Further, the dependent Claims include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
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. To do so, the examiner looks to the following exemplary considerations, looking at the elements individually and in combination:
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 ;
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)); and/or
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).
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)).
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1, 11, and 20 (and their respective dependent Claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: "a processor," "a memory," and a “display device”— are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoke generic computing components as tools to carry out the abstract idea. Here:
(i) The processor, display device, and memory, perform conventional computing operations (receiving, storing, transmitting).
Furthermore, none of these elements reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. The claims do not recite any improvement to the functioning of a computer, an electronic gaming machine. See Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 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)).
Additionally, none of these additional elements 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. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 11, and 20 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1, 11, and 20 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
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.
Considered individually and as an ordered combination the additional elements as recited above do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The recited electronic gaming machine components are each well-understood, routine, and conventional in the gaming art. These additional elements, such as a processor, a memory device, and a display device, 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.
Additionally, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
Furthermore, taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1, 11, and 20 (and their dependent Claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to conduct a game with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
For at least the above reasons, Claims 1 to 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
Dependent Claims are ineligible and lack a practical application.
Claims 2-10 inherit the same abstract idea as Claim 1.
Claims 12-19 inherit the same abstract idea as Claim 11.
The dependent claims recite further extra-solution activities and further define the abstract idea of the independent claims.
AIA Notice
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.
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 7,416,484 to Nelson et al. (hereinafter Nelson) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0229693 A1 to Lind et al. (hereinafter Lind).
Regarding Claim 1, and similarly recited Claims 11 and 20, Nelson discloses an electronic gaming system comprising:
at least one memory with instructions stored thereon (Col. 4:35-45; Col. 6:54-59 “controller 12 generally comprises a processor board including a processor coupled to memory and to an input/output (I/O) interface for communication to I/O devices (e.g., keyboard, controls, display device, network device)”); and
at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory (fig. 1 central controller 12 with processor coupled to memory and player terminals 18a, 18b), wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor (Col. 6:54-59 “controller 12 generally comprises a processor board including a processor coupled to memory and to an input/output (I/O) interface for communication to I/O devices (e.g., keyboard, controls, display device, network device)”), cause the at least one processor to:
store, in the at least one memory, at least one primary ticket set and at least one secondary ticket set, the at least one primary ticket set including a first plurality of tickets and the at least one secondary ticket set including a second plurality of tickets (Col. 6:64 – Col. 7:15 “ticket pools 14 are normally generated by a computer or other data processing device and then stored on the central controller 12 for distribution to the player terminals 18a through 18n… the ticket pools 14 are generated from templates (which define the number of award levels whether primary or bonus and the number of awards in each award level) into "deals" having a plurality of game set elements. As described above, the present invention provides for primary award levels, and at least one bonus award level, where at least one of the primary award levels includes one bonus award from the bonus award level(s));
in response to a game instance, select a first ticket from the first plurality of tickets (Col. 9:4-7, 14-16, Col. 6:19-21 discloses a player terminal 18a has received a wager from a player as well as a request to purchase a game set element (normally by pulling a handle or pressing a play button) … the central controller 12 receives the request from player terminal 18a, and retrieves a game set element from the indicated ticket pool… When a player terminal request a game element from the central server, the central server selects a primary element from the primary awards (e.g., 1 through 9));
determine (i) a first prize associated with the first ticket (Col. 4:37-42 discloses a game set element physically comprises an element of data, stored in a computer memory, which element identifies the award associated with that element. For example, the computer can store a plurality of game set elements as an array, each element of the array identifying a monetary value)(the award/prize is determined from the game set element) and (ii) a first facade associated with the first ticket;
cause a display device to display the first façade (Col. 9:34-38 discloses At block 250, the player terminal 18a then determines the primary award from signal 240 and reverse maps the primary award amount into a corresponding primary display (e.g., reel symbols, cards symbols, keno symbols, etc.), which is then shown to the user);
in response to the first prize including a free play, select a second ticket from the second plurality of tickets (Col. 11:9-29 discloses selecting the one of the at least one bonus prize if said one of the at least one primary prize identifies entitlement to the one of the at least one bonus prize, and removing said one of the at least one bonus prize from said finite pool if the one of the at least one primary prize identifies entitlement to the one of the at least one bonus prize and if said one of the at least one primary prize indicates entitlement to the one of the at least one bonus prize, then communicating said one of the at least one bonus prize to said one of the plurality of player terminals);
determine (i) a second prize associated with the second ticket and (ii) a second facade associated with the second ticket (Col. 9:41-45 discloses For each bonus award, the bonus amount indicated from signal 240 is reversed mapped into corresponding secondary or bonus displays, each of which are then shown to the user; the corresponding bonus awards are also paid to the player). ; and
cause the display device to display the second facade.
Nelson does not explicitly disclose “…. (ii) a first facade associated with the first ticket; … cause a display device to display the first facade; … (ii) a second facade associated with the second ticket; and … cause the display device to display the second facade.”
In a related invention, Lind discloses “…. (ii) a first facade associated with the first ticket; … cause a display device to display the first facade; … (ii) a second facade associated with the second ticket; and … cause the display device to display the second façade” (paras. [0006], [0012] discloses the win/loss result is determined by a predetermined video lottery ticket or data record that is selected from a set of such records in response to a game play request. The game video display of a video lottery terminal may simply show a representation of the predetermined lottery record selected for a given game play request … and the graphics provided on the game video display may alternatively provide a presentation of a different game such as a presentation including spinning reels imitating a traditional mechanical slot machine).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Lind with the gaming system of Nelson as both references are in the same field and the combination produces predictable results of Lind’s façade feature and Nelson’s primary and bonus pool gaming yields exactly the claimed system.
Regarding Claim 2, and similarly recited Claim 12, Nelson in view of Lind discloses the electronic gaming system of Claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to:
in response to the second prize including a free play, select a third ticket from the second plurality of tickets; and determine (i) a third prize associated with the third ticket and (ii) a third facade associated with the third ticket; and cause the display device to display the third façade (Nelson, Col. 7:65 – Col. 8:2 discloses a primary bonus award will further indicated entitlement to yet another bonus award (i.e., nested bonus), in which case, box 130 is carried out to determine the further bonus award. Further nesting of bonus awards may further be defined; Lind, paras. [0006], [0012]).
Regarding Claim 3, and similarly recited Claim 13, Nelson in view of Lind discloses the electronic gaming system of Claim 2, wherein the second ticket is selected from a first secondary ticket set and the third ticket is selected from a second secondary ticket set different from the first secondary ticket set (Nelson, Col. 6:11-18 discloses prize level 6 would include a base prize of five (5) plus a bonus prize from bonus prize levels 100 through 120. Prize level 8 would include a base prize of three (3) plus a bonus prize from bonus prize levels 100 through 110)(different primary awards thus different sub-ranges of bonus levels (i.e. different secondary ticket sets).
Regarding Claim 4, and similarly recited Claim 14, Nelson in view of Lind discloses the electronic gaming system of Claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: in response to the first prize including a free play, cause the display device to prompt an input of a selection; and select the second ticket from the second plurality of tickets based on the selection (Nelson, Col. 9:4-29).
Regarding Claim 5, and similarly recited Claim 15, Nelson in view of Lind discloses the electronic gaming system of Claim 1, wherein the first plurality of tickets of the at least one primary ticket set and the second plurality of tickets of the at least one secondary ticket set are stored in predefined sequences, and wherein the instructions further cause the processor to select the first ticket and the second ticket according to the predefined sequences (Nelson, Col. 10:4-13 discloses a counter may be used to determine the current array element in an award array. Those array elements, if any, prior to the current array element have been previously "played" and are considered "removed" in that they cannot be played again. At block 300, the central controller 12 selects the next award from the award array for a given ticket pool, the next award being the current array element defined by the counter for the ticket pool. The selected award will indicate, among other things, an award level and an award amount).
Regarding Claim 6, and similarly recited Claim 16, Nelson in view of Lind discloses the electronic gaming system of Claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to select the first ticket from the first plurality of tickets and/or the second ticket from the second plurality of tickets based at least in part on a random number generator (RNG) outcome (Nelson, Col. 4:49-55 discloses In operation, the central server randomly selects a game set element from the finite pool. Each such element is coded so that it is associated with a particular award corresponding to the prize levels. The player terminal must then translate, or reverse-map, that award into an appropriate symbol display and payout the award. The chosen game set element is then removed from the pool).
Regarding Claim 7, and similarly recited Claim 17, Nelson in view of Lind discloses the electronic gaming system of Claim 1, wherein the first facade is prespecified by the first ticket (Lind, [0006] discloses the graphics provided on the game video display may alternatively provide a presentation of a different game such as a presentation including spinning reels imitating a traditional mechanical slot machine. The reel stop position is dictated by the result associated with the predetermined video lottery record selected in response to a game play request at the video lottery terminal).
Regarding Claim 8, and similarly recited Claim 18, Nelson in view of Lind discloses the electronic gaming system of Claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to select the first facade based on the first prize and at least in part on an RNG outcome (Nelson, Col. 2:8-15).
Regarding Claim 9, and similarly recited Claim 19, Nelson in view of Lind discloses the electronic gaming system of Claim 1, wherein the second facade is prespecified by the second ticket (Lind, [0006] discloses the graphics provided on the game video display may alternatively provide a presentation of a different game such as a presentation including spinning reels imitating a traditional mechanical slot machine. The reel stop position is dictated by the result associated with the predetermined video lottery record selected in response to a game play request at the video lottery terminal).
Regarding Claim 10, Nelson in view of Lind discloses the electronic gaming system of Claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to select the second facade based on the second prize and at least in part on an RNG outcome (Nelson, Col. 2:8-15).
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.
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
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights