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 .
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., an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1 – Statutory category?
Claims 1-3 are directed to an electronic device (a machine), claims 14-17 to a computer-implemented method (a process), and claims 18-20 to non-transitory computer-readable media (a manufacture). Thus, the claims fall within the statutory categories of inventions passing Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong One – Abstract idea?
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, independent claims 1, 14, & 18 recite: (i) generating and displaying a base game with a first set of reels and a community matrix in a display interface, (ii) randomly determining social trigger symbols on reel columns for players in a shared session, and (iii) for each social trigger symbol, simultaneously presenting corresponding community social trigger symbols in aligned columns of the community matrix, attributed to respective players whose play caused those symbols.
The dependent claims further specify game rules and conditions, including: triggering a bonus game and spinning a multiplier wheel when matrix columns are filled with community social trigger symbols, applying a resulting multiplier to amounts won (claims 2-5, 15); allowing some players to play bonus or feature games while others continue the base game, and selectively displaying prize interferences only to certain players (claims 5-6, 11-12); determining normal trigger symbols, boost symbols, upgrading normal trigger symbols to social trigger symbols, and populating the community matrix accordingly including triggering a feature game based on counts of normal trigger symbols (claims 9-12, 16-17, 19-20); and displaying a graphic associated with a particular player as part of the community social trigger symbol (claim 13).
Taken together, the claims are directed to rules and logic for playing and managing a community-based multiplayer electronic wagering game, including symbol generation, symbol accumulation in a community matrix, and various conditions for bonus or feature games, multipliers, prize display, etc. This falls within the abstract idea grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity”, specifically rules for playing a game and managing participation and rewards, and also includes basic mathematical or cognitive operations such as counting symbols and applying multipliers to awards.
The Federal Circuit has held that rules for conducting a wagering game are abstract in In re Smith, where the court affirmed a § 101 rejection because the claims described game rules and lacked an inventive concept. The Federal Circuit likewise held in In re Marco Guldenaar that claims directed to rules for playing a dice game were directed to an abstract idea. The present claims are analogous because the alleged advance is not a new machine, display, processor architecture, reel mechanism, networking protocol, or random-number-generation technology, but rather a set of rules for how symbols in a game are determined, displayed, aligned, and attributed among players.
The claims also falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping because they organize interactions among multiple players in a same game session by assigning and displaying player-attributed community trigger symbols. The claims expressly recite social/community gameplay and attribution of symbols to particular players, which is a rule for managing social interactions between players in the electronic game environment.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Integration into a practical application?
The claims additional recite generic computer components and functions, such as: at least one processor, memory, non-transitory computer-readable media, a display interface, and end user devices which function to execute instructions to generate displays, randomly select symbols, trigger other game routines, and output game results, prizes, etc.
The claim does not recite an improvement to the functioning of the processor, memory, display, electronic gaming device, or any other technology. The MPEP instructs that a claim may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application when it improves computer functionality or another technology, but the improvement must be technological, not merely an improved business, social, or game rule. Here, the claimed additional elements simply use conventional computing hardware as a tool to implement the abstract game rules. There is no recited technical solution to a computer-specific problem, nor any particular architecture that changes how the hardware operations, rather the focus remains on the game rules. For example, the claims does not specify any particular technical means for improving graphical rendering, reducing network latency, synchronizing multiplayer sessions, improving random-number generation, improving memory usage, changing the operation of a gaming machine, etc. The claims are analogous to Electric Power Group, where claims directed to collecting, analyzing, and displaying information in a particular field were held ineligible because they stated desired information-based results without limiting the claims to inventive technical means for achieving those results. Here, the claims determine which trigger symbols appear and displays corresponding symbols in a matrix, but does not recite a technical mechanism beyond generic computer execution and display of game information.
Therefore, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – Inventive concept?
The generic hardware identified above are well-understood, routine, and conventional in computer-implemented gaming (as evidenced by the prior art of record). The “community matrix”, “social trigger symbols”, “normal trigger symbols”, “boost symbols”, “multiplier wheel”, etc. are game constructs and conditions, not unconventional technical components or data structures. They merely define the abstract rules of the game. The Supreme Court in Alice held that generic computer implementation does not transform an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter, and that generic computer functions such as obtaining, maintaining, adjusting, and issuing information are conventional computer functions. Similarly, in Planet Bingo, claims involving computerized management of a bingo game were found ineligible where the computer performed generic storing, retrieving, and verifying functions.
As an ordered combination, the claims recite no more than: using a generic electronic gaming device to display reels and a community matrix, randomly determine game symbols, and display corresponding attributed community symbols according to the game rules. The ordered combination is therefore itself the abstract idea implemented on generic computer components. The MPEP explains that simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional computer activities at a high level of generality to a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For at least these reasons, the Examiner must respectfully position that claims 1-20 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILAP SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-1723. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30-6PM.
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, KANG HU can be reached at 571-270-1344. 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.
/MILAP SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights