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 abstract idea without significantly more.
2019 PEG Analysis
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a statutory category (e.g., a process, machine, etc.)
Claims 1-18 are directed to an apparatus. Claims 19 and 20 are directed to a process.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea. The following specific limitations in the claims under examination recite an abstract idea:
Incrementing a progressive value of an electronic game (e.g., claims 1, 10, and 19)
Determining a trigger condition associated with the progressive value, and animating upon trigger condition (e.g., claims 1, 9, 10, 18, and 19)
Accessing the progressive value and providing the progressive value over game plays (e.g., claims 1, 10, and 19)
Winning a double award (e.g., claims 2, 11, and 20)
Ending the progressive from being awarded when value reaches a threshold/zero (e.g., claims 3, 4, 8, 12, 13, 17, and 20)
Setting/ending a number of plays, either predetermined or random (e.g., claims 5, 6, 14, and 15)
Setting a time limit for the number of plays (e.g., claims 7 and 16)
The above listed identified limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG:
Mental Processes: concepts preformed in the human mind (including on observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions or relationships of interaction between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.
The claims are primarily directed to rules for playing a wagering game, wherein the game rules align with a method of organizing human activity. For example, the steps of monitoring a game for a triggering condition, providing an award, incrementing/stopping an award can be performed mentally by a dealer/player. The game rules regarding how triggers occur and when awarding values starts/ends are merely rules for playing a game.
Step 2A (Prong 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Overall, the following additional claim limitations appear to merely implement the abstract idea, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, or generally link the judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use, as outlined below:
Storing data (e.g., claims 1, 10, and 18, insignificant extra-solution activity);
Displaying an animation (e.g., claims 9 and 20, insignificant extra-solution activity).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
With regard to claims 1-20 the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The above listed additional claim limitations display and process game data in a well-understood, routine, and conventional way. Further, the computer hardware of claim 1 (e.g., a processor and memory) are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art.
In order to satisfy the Berkheimer factual determination of conventional elements in the art, U.S. Patent No. 7,819,742 to Chamberlain is cited for disclosing the conventional features of slot machines including processors (e.g., see at least column 11, lines 14-16) and displays (e.g., see column 7, lines 12-25). Therefore, claims 1-24 are not patent eligible under 101.
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, 5, 6, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0314657 to Buchholz in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 5,042,818 to Weingardt.
With regard to claim 1, Buchholz discloses an electronic gaming device (e.g., see Figs. 1 and 2 for disclosure of a gaming device) comprising: at least one memory (e.g., see at least Fig. 2, that shows main memory 44) with instructions stored thereon; and at least one processor (e.g., see at least Fig. 2, that shows CPU 42 in communication with main memory 44) 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: cause a storing a progressive value of a progressive account and associated with the electronic gaming device to be incremented over a first number of plays of an electronic game (e.g., see at least Fig. 4, steps 414-418 that discuss limiting a first progressive award and storing the difference/value for future play cycles); determine that a trigger condition associated with providing the progressive value is satisfied in the electronic game (e.g., see Fig. 4, wherein step 410 provides a progressive triggering evnt during a play cycle and the play cycle repeats when there’s a stored positive balance at step 418 back to step 402 and then eventually back to triggering step 410); cause access to the progressive value stored in the progressive register associated with the progressive account to be provided based upon the trigger condition being satisfied (e.g., see Fig. 4, step 414 for awarding a portion of the progressive award during first time through flow diagram); and cause at least part of the progressive value to be provided over a second number of plays of the electronic game (e.g., see Fig. 4, step 418 for awarding a portion of the progressive award during second or more times through flow diagram);
[claim 5] wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to provide the second number of plays, wherein an amount of plays of the second number of plays is one of predetermined or randomly determined (e.g., see Fig. 4, wherein the second number of replays is random because the triggering events are random, such that, the flow diagram will repeat a random number of times based on the random triggering of in step 410);
[claim 6] wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to cause access to the progressive value associated with the progressive account to stop being provided after the second number of plays (e.g., see Fig. 4, the flow diagram will end when there’s no additional progressive value balance to award, that is nearly everything eventually comes to an end); and
[claim 8] wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: determine a portion of the progressive value that comprises the at least part of the progressive value (e.g., see Fig. 4, steps 412 and 414 that limits an initial progressive value award) ; cause plays of the electronic game with access to the progressive value to be provided until the portion of the progressive value is provided (e.g., see Fig. 4 that repeats the play cycle from steps 402 to 418 eventually payout the saved balance of the progressive award), wherein the plays comprise the second number of plays; and cause access to the progressive value associated with the progressive account to stop being provided based upon the portion of the progressive value being provided (e.g., see Fig. 4, the flow diagram will end when there’s no additional progressive value balance to award, that is nearly everything eventually comes to an end).
While the Examiner believes that Buchholz necessarily includes a “progressive register” to store the progressive value for future game plays, Buchholz does not expressly disclose the recited claim language. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner relies upon a secondary reference to expressly teach the use of a “progressive register”.
In the same field of endeavor, Weingardt teaches a game device with a progressive register for storing progressive values (e.g., see at least column 14, lines 9-15, that discloses a “progressive register incrementing”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Buchholz with the progressive register as taught by Weingardt in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, a progressive register is a storage location for storing data in an efficient manner.
With regard to claim 10, Buchholz in view of Weingardt make obvious the recited non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which is similar in scope to claim 1 and rejected based on the same analysis. Likewise, claims 14, 15, and 17 are similar in scope to claims 5, 6, and 8, which are analyzed in detail above.
Claims 2-4, 7, 11-13, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchholz in view of Weingardt as applied to claims 1, 10, and 20 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0228151 to Damodaran.
With regard to claims 2-4, 11, 12, and 20, Buchholz fails to expressly disclose doubling a win amount. It is noted that a double win amount could naturally occur by chance if the original win amount equals the remaining progressive balance. As noted above, Buchholz discloses in the flow diagram of Fig. 4, that the process will end when there’s no additional progressive value balance to award, that is nearly everything eventually comes to an end. For purposes of compact prosecution, a second reference is relied upon to teach doubling an award.
In the same field of endeavor, Damodaran teaches a game device with a bonus including a 2X bonus, which is equivalent to doubling the win amount (e.g., see at least paragraph 104 for discussion of a 2X multiplier).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Buchholz with a double award bonus as taught by Damodaran in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, applying a bonus multiplier is common bonus award that increase player excitement and enjoyment.
With regard to claims 7 and 16, Buchholz fails to expressly disclose ending the bonus based on time limit.
In the same field of endeavor, Damodaran teaches a game device with a bonus including a time limit of two weeks (e.g., see at least paragraph 104 for discussion of a two-week time limit).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Buchholz with a bonus time limit as taught by Damodaran in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, applying a time limit encourages the player to continue playing at least as long as the time limit to maximize the bonus benefit.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchholz in view of Weingardt as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0097220 to Lyons.
With regard to claims 9 and 18, Buchholz fails to expressly animating a bonus triggering event.
In the same field of endeavor, Lyons teaches a game device that displays an animation of a bonus triggering event (e.g., see at least paragraph 45 for discussion of animation of a bonus triggering event).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Buchholz with an animation of bonus triggering event as taught by Lyons in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, animating a bonus triggering event increases player excitement and enjoyment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 11,721,169 to Macke discusses an electronic gaming machine incremental payouts (e.g., see at least Fig. 5).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0118268 to Adams discusses a gaming device with a bonus game having 2X multiplier (e.g., see at least paragraph 325).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0380826 to Taylor discusses gaming machines that include stand-alone progressives (e.g., see at least paragraphs 7, 21, and 57).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0332558 to Riggs discusses a gaming machine with a stand-alone progressive (e.g., see at least paragraph 38).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0111845 to Fitzsimons discusses a gaming device with a progressive banking feature (e.g., see at least Fig. 5).
U.S. Patent No. 7,410,421 to Mathis discusses a gaming machine with a stand-alone progressive (e.g., see at least paragraph 4).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0281781 to Kennedy discusses a gaming machine with many jackpots that are paid out over time (e.g., see at least paragraph 16).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0211493 to Walker discusses a gaming system that pays jackpots out in a lump sum or installments (e.g., see at least paragraph 412).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES S MCCLELLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:30AM-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.
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.
/James S. McClellan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights