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 Objections
2. Claims 16 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“winning” is misspelled as “wining” in “at least one wining sequence matched by the player” in claim 16;
“plurality of win value” should be “plurality of win values” in claim 16;
“player selected of symbols” should be “player selected sequence of symbols” in the second-to-last and last clauses of claim 17.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
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.
A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. §101. The Supreme Court has held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, the application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293–94 (2012). In Mayo, the Court stated that “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.’” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citation omitted).
In Alice, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination”’ to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’‒ i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “‘[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,’ was not ‘enough’ [in Mayo] to supply an ‘inventive concept.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
Examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claims 1-20 are directed to machines, methods, and apparatus, which fall into the four statutory categories. However, claims that fall within one of the four subject matter categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas. See Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 309 (1980).
In Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is ‘directed to’ a judicially recognized exception. According to the specification, the disclosure concerns gaming systems “configured to present games” (paragraph 11) and/or “configured with programming or instructions that when executed by the processor, cause the processor to execute operations for playing a game” (paragraph 12).
Representative claim 1 recites the following (with emphasis):
“A method comprising:
receiving, by a processor of a gaming device, a play request from a player interacting with the gaming device;
in response to the play request, initiating a first play of a skill-based game by the gaming device, including:
generating a game field of the skill-based game arranged as an array of cells having a plurality of rows and columns, wherein the cells of the rows and columns are presented in a staggered arrangement; and
displaying on a display of the gaming device a first sequence of symbols within the array of cells, each cell in the array of cells comprising a discrete symbol in the first sequence of symbols;
receiving, via a user interface of the gaming device, a symbol selection input from the player interacting with the gaming device to select at least one symbol rendered in the first sequence of symbols to become a “wild” symbol so as to create a player selected sequence of symbols;
determining, by the processor of the gaming device, an outcome of the play of the skill-based game based upon an alignment of a plurality of same type symbols and the wild symbol of the player selected sequence of symbols in adjacent cells of the array in comparison to at least one winning sequence; and
wherein the skill-based game is configured to enable creation of multiple varying game fields having different numbers and arrangements of rows and columns of cells.”
The underlined portions of representative claim 1 generally encompass the abstract idea, with substantially similar features in claims 10 and 17. It is clear that the inventive concept here is a set of rules for a game, which may provide one or more awards to a player. The dependent claims further define the abstract idea by introducing various rules to the game (e.g., the player is only awarded the award corresponding to the highest-ranked winning sequence in the event that multiple winning sequences appear, the player’s score is modified according to how fast the player selects a symbol to be converted into a wild symbol, etc.). The abstract idea may be viewed, for example, as:
a method of exchanging financial obligations (e.g., an award-providing game, which is effectively a method of exchanging and resolving financial obligations based on probabilities created during the game) as discussed in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. 208 (2014), In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2018),
a fundamental economic practice (e.g., rules for conducting a game) as discussed in In re Smith, and In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V.,
a method of organizing human activities (e.g., allowing a human player to play an award-providing game according to rules of the game method) as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank.
The claimed abstract idea reproduced above is effectively a method of exchanging and resolving financial obligations between one or more players and an operator of the gaming machine based on probabilities created during the game (see Smith, Marco Guldenaar, and Alice). Based on the reasoning in Smith, and Marco Guldenaar, the recited steps of conducting a game in the instant claims relate to the “fundamental economic practice” of rules for conducting a game. Finally, the claims allow a player to win an award, which is a financial transaction based on the rules of the game (e.g., as determined by a random number generator). Such transactions are akin to the sort of organizing of human activities, i.e., risk hedging, discussed in Bilski (and shadow accounts in Alice).
Under prong 1, the above analysis demonstrates that the claimed invention encompasses an abstract idea in the form of mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity. Under prong 2, the instant claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely provide instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, add only extra solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. While certain physical elements (e.g., elements that are not an abstract idea such as a gaming machine) are present in the claims, such features do not effect an improvement in any technology or technical field and are recited in generic (i.e., not particular) ways. Similarly, the abstract idea does not improve the functioning of these physical elements. The claims do not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) are not applied with any particular machine (only generic gaming components), (3) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (4) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (e.g., a casino), such that the claim, as a whole, is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
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 claims encompass the following additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se: an electronic gaming device comprising a memory and a processor to execute instructions to carry out the abstract idea. 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.
To the extent the claimed game machines are casino-type gaming machines, such as slot machines, the claimed features are generic, conventional, and well-known in the art of wager gaming and/or are devices and techniques that represent extra-solution activity.
For instance, US 6,142,872 to Walker et al. teaches that these elements are conventional:
“The slot server 200 and the slot machines 300-303, discussed further below in conjunction with FIGS. 2 and 3, respectively, may be embodied as conventional hardware and software, as modified herein to carry out the functions and operations described below. The slot server 200 and slot machines 300-303 transmit data between one another. The transmitted data may represent player names and corresponding identification numbers and team associations, credit balance amounts and play results. The slot server 200 and each of the slot machines 300-303 may communicate by means of cable or wireless links on which data signals can propagate” (6:53-64).
“In a per-spin embodiment, each player starts the representative slot machine 300 in a conventional manner by providing a form of payment, for example, by depositing one or more coins or bills in a coin/bill acceptor 355, or inserting a credit card, debit card or smart card into a card reader 364” (8:45-50).
“Each team player can cash out in a conventional manner by pushing a cash out button 370 on his or her respective slot machine 300-303. The CPU 310 then checks the RAM to see if the player has any credit and, if so, signals the hopper 354 to release an appropriate number of coins into a payout tray” (9:15-20).
Walker additionally teaches that “slot machines 300-303” may be embodied as “conventional hardware and software” shown in Figure 3, including three reels, a reel controller, a video display and a random number generator.
US 2008/0026854 to Chen et al. describes a “conventional gaming machine” that may include a cabinet housing that supports a display, several input devices, a currency acceptor, and encloses the electrical components, such as a processor and random number generator, with a door having a lock for the cabinet to prevent unauthorized access along with doors being in communication with the controller to alert a user if the door is opened. See e.g., Chen ¶ 27, 31, 33, and 42.
Furthermore, the specification admits that “The present disclosure contemplates a variety of different gaming systems each having one or more of a plurality of different features, attributes, or characteristics” (paragraph 161). These devices may include mobile devices, tablet devices, smart phones, and laptops. As such, a generic mobile device or conventional mobile phone would be capable of meeting the substantive limitations of the claims, as well as other generic computer devices such as laptops and desktops.
In light of these factual findings, the additional claim features discussed above are well-understood, routine, and conventional and/or constitute extra-solution activities.
Taking the claimed elements individually yields no difference from taking them in combination because each element simply performs its respective function as discussed above. The claims do not purport to improve the functioning of a computer itself, nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the additional features merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic, functional, and conventional components well-known in the art. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berman et al (U.S. Patent No 20100216540) in view of Vancura (U.S. Patent No 20060172796).
Regarding claim 1, Berman et al, henceforth Berman, discloses “a method comprising: receiving, by a processor of a gaming device, a play request from a player interacting with the gaming device (see paragraph 6, lines 1-4, “Various embodiments of the invention concern a computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon which are executable [b]y the processor for facilitating a game”); in response to the play request, initiating a first play of a skill-based game by the gaming device (see paragraph 121, lines 23-25, “The user input may include a plurality of buttons 1008, which allow the user to initiate the game play in accordance with the invention”), including: generating a game field of the skill-based game arranged as an array of cells having a plurality of rows and columns, wherein the cells of the rows and columns are presented in a staggered arrangement (see Fig. 12); and displaying on a display of the gaming device a first sequence of symbols within the array of cells, each cell in the array of cells comprising a discrete symbol in the first sequence of symbols (Fig. 12); […] determining, by the processor of the gaming device, an outcome of the play of the skill-based game based upon an alignment of a plurality of same type symbols and the wild symbol of the player selected sequence of symbols in adjacent cells of the array in comparison to at least one winning sequence (see Fig. 12 and paragraph 85, lines 8-14, “the markings of the hexagonal elements within the subportion boundaries 710 and 711 may be analyzed for winning element markings or combinations of element markings that correspond to a paytable. Payouts may be made according to scatter pay or adjacent corresponding element series methods described herein or otherwise known in the art”); and wherein the skill-based game is configured to enable creation of multiple varying game fields having different numbers and arrangements of rows and columns of cells (Berman specifically teaches marking a “play area”, wherein in some embodiments only the elements inside the play area are counted when determining if a winning combination has occurred: see paragraph 5, lines 6-10, “[…] at least some correspondingly marked elements of the second grid framing the activated portion of the first grid and causing the portion to be activated, and evaluating at least some elements of the first grid to identify winning combinations of element markings within the activated portion”; these “play areas” are dynamically created by the player and a variety of different arrangements of rows and columns of cells are possible: see Figs. 6-7 and 12).”
Although Berman teaches that allowing players to select elements to “activate” and “deactivate” them improves player enjoyment of the game (see paragraph 66, “player selection of corresponding elements and/or subportions and/or activation/deactiviation of corresponding elements and/or subportions improves player enjoyment because a player is provided with greater control and allows the player to form and apply strategy to the game”), Berman is silent on whether this player selection comprises “receiving, via a user interface of the gaming device, a symbol selection input from the player interacting with the gaming device to select at least one symbol rendered in the first sequence of symbols to become a “wild” symbol so as to create a player selected sequence to of symbols.”
Vancura teaches a method for playing a slot machine, wherein the player is able to select symbols to be converted into wild symbols (see the abstract, “With a selector the player chooses one or more symbols and a converter changes [them] to be wild for awarding according to the pay table and/or rules of play”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gaming system of Berman to allow the player to select symbols in the element array to be converted into wild symbols, as taught by Vancura, and they would have been motivated to do so to allow players to apply strategy to the game and thereby increase player enjoyment of the game, as taught by Berman.
Regarding claim 2, Berman discloses “the method of claim 1, wherein the cells each comprise a hexagonal configuration (see Fig. 7); and wherein a different number of offset rows and columns of cells are selected by the processor so as to enable presentation of the skill-based game with arrays having different numbers and arrangements of the cells to provide multiple winning sequences for a play of the skill-based game (Berman specifically teaches marking a “play area”, wherein in some embodiments only the elements inside the play area are counted when determining if a winning combination has occurred: see paragraph 5, lines 6-10, “[…] at least some correspondingly marked elements of the second grid framing the activated portion of the first grid and causing the portion to be activated, and evaluating at least some elements of the first grid to identify winning combinations of element markings within the activated portion”; these “play areas” are dynamically created by the player and a variety of different arrangements of rows and columns of cells are possible: see Figs. 6-7 and 12).”
Regarding claim 3, Berman discloses “the method of claim 1, wherein the skill-based game is configured to enable multiple winning sequences; and wherein the outcome comprises one or more different win values or a loss (see paragraph 81, lines 2-6 and 7-8, “The markings of the square elements within subportion boundaries can be used in various different ways to determine when a player has won. For example, the markings of square elements within any of the subportion boundaries 610, 620, 630 and 640 may be used to form a poker hand […] multiple poker hands may be formed”).”
Regarding claim 4, Berman discloses “the method of claim 3, wherein the win values are based on a ranking of the winning sequences (see paragraph 81, lines 5-8, “the markings of square elements within any of the subportion boundaries 610, 620, 630 and 640 may be used to form a poker hand, the poker hand being the best poker hand possible with the cards in the subportions”); and wherein one or more of the win values exceeds a play amount of the skill-based game (see Fig. 12: the player has won 10 credits due to the occurrence of 3 adjacent diamonds, while only having wagered 1 credit on the current play of the game).”
Regarding claim 6, Berman discloses “the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one winning sequence comprises one or more of fully complete winning sequences or partially complete winning sequences (see Fig. 12: the table at the top indicates payouts for fully complete sequences, but the wild symbol has allowed the player to win 10 credits despite there only being a partially complete sequence of 2 adjacent diamonds).”
Regarding claim 7, Berman discloses “the method of claim 1, wherein determining the outcome of a play comprises comparing the player selected sequence of symbols to a plurality of winning sequences corresponding to a plurality of paylines (see paragraph 62, lines 7-12, “in one embodiment, only those symbols that are adjacent in a horizontal or vertical fashion will be deemed "adjacent" for purposes of providing a payout. Alternatively, only symbols that are horizontal, or that are vertical, or that are diagonal, may be deemed adjacent”; this would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as describing a “payline” in the traditional sense) and determining a prize award based on whether the player selected sequence of symbols matches any of the plurality of winning sequences (see Fig. 12, which depicts a player winning 10 credits due to the sequence highlighted on the field matching one of the winning sequences indicated in the table at the top, with the wild symbol substituting for the third diamond).”
Regarding claim 8, Berman discloses “the method of claim 7, wherein if the player selected sequence of symbols matched at least one of the plurality of winning sequences, determining by the processor of the gaming device, a prize award having a win value based upon a priority or ranking of the winning sequences matched by the player selected sequence of symbols (see paragraph 81, lines 2-8, “The markings of the square elements within subportion boundaries can be used in various different ways to determine when a player has won. For example, the markings of square elements within any of the subportion boundaries 610, 620, 630 and 640 may be used to form a poker hand, the poker hand being the best poker hand possible with the cards in the subportions”).”
Regarding claim 9, Berman discloses “the method of claim 1, wherein each symbol of the first sequence of symbols comprises (a) one of one or more shapes, (b) one of one or more colors, and (c) one of one or more sizes (see paragraph 71, lines 3-6, “Elements of element sets can also be distinguished from each other by other labels, words, numbers, shapes, sizes, colors, relative positions and the like” necessarily implies that the elements have a shape, size, and color).”
7. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berman et al (U.S. Patent No 20100216540) in view of Vancura (U.S. Patent No 20060172796) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bowers et al (WIPO Patent No 2010051442).
Regarding claim 5, Berman (in view of Vancura), discloses “the method of claim 1.”
However, Berman (in view of Vancura) does not disclose “the outcome is further based on a completion time of the first play.”
Bowers et al, henceforth Bowers, teaches a wagering game system that rewards players based on their skill (see paragraph 16, lines 1-3 and 5-7, “Some embodiments include a system comprising a wagering game machine that comprises an activity tracking unit configured to track accomplishments of skill-based goals […] award monetary amounts, from the limited award amount, based on skill-based goals achieved by a player account”). In particular, Bowers notes that the completion time of a skill-based goal can be factored into the player’s score (see paragraph 19, lines 1-4, “In some embodiments, the activity tracking unit is configured to determine a completion time by a player account to complete one or more of the skill-based goals in the skill- based networked wagering game, and to adjust at least some portion of a completion score based on the completion time”). Finally, Bowers teaches a motivation for implementing game mechanics from skill-based games into wagering games, including modifying a player’s score based on completion time, in paragraph 91, bullet point 7, lines 1-4: “The system can encourage players to complete task, events, interactions, etc. in a timely manner by modifying a value of bonus awards, points, scores, or other wagering game achievements based on an amount of time that a player takes to complete the tasks.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gaming system of Berman (in view of Vancura) to award monetary payouts based on players’ accomplishment of skill-based goals, and more specifically to factor in the players’ completion time into their score, as taught by Bowers, and they would have been motivated to do so to encourage players to complete game events in a timely manner, as taught by Bowers.
8. Claim(s) 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berman et al (U.S. Patent No 20100216540) in view of Vancura (U.S. Patent No 20060172796) and Schmidt et al (U.S. Patent No 20180025585).
Regarding claim 10, Berman et al, henceforth Berman, discloses “a system comprising: a user interface including a display and an input device (see paragraph 121, lines 3-4 and 8-10, “The slot machine 1200 is a structure including at least a computing system, a housing, and a display […] and also includes a user interface 1206 to allow the user to control and engage in play of the slot machine 1200”); a processor; and a computer-readable storage medium, coupled with the processor, storing instructions executed by the processor that (see paragraph 6, lines 1-4, “Various embodiments of the invention concern a computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon which are executable [b]y the processor for facilitating a game”), when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receiving a play request from a player to initiate a play of a skill-based game (see paragraph 121, lines 23-25, “The user input may include a plurality of buttons 1008, which allow the user to initiate the game play in accordance with the invention”), in response to receiving the play request via the input device, generating a game field to be displayed on the display (see Fig. 12); wherein the game field includes a first sequence of symbols presented as an array of hexagonal cells, each hexagonal cell in the array of hexagonal cells comprising a symbol of the first sequence of symbols (Fig. 12); wherein the array of hexagonal cells comprises at least two offset rows and at least two columns of hexagonal cells configured to be arranged in side-to-side contact (see Fig. 12); based on a position of the “wild” symbol in a selected cell of the array of hexagonal cells and a position of one or more additional symbols of a same type within the array of cells, determine a game outcome of the play of the skill game (see Fig. 12); wherein the game outcome is determined by whether placement of the “wild” symbol in the selected cell completes at least one winning sequence of adjacent same type symbols and the “wild” symbol within the array of hexagonal cells (see Fig. 12: the table at the top indicates payouts for fully complete sequences, but the wild symbol has allowed the player to win 10 credits despite there only being a partially complete sequence of 2 adjacent diamonds); and wherein the array of hexagonal cells is variable and the instructions are configured to enable the processor to add […] one or more cells to the array of cells create different playfields having different numbers of winning sequences for the play of the skill game (Berman specifically teaches marking a “play area”, wherein in some embodiments only the elements inside the play area are counted when determining if a winning combination has occurred: see paragraph 5, lines 6-10, “[…] at least some correspondingly marked elements of the second grid framing the activated portion of the first grid and causing the portion to be activated, and evaluating at least some elements of the first grid to identify winning combinations of element markings within the activated portion”; these “play areas” are dynamically created by the player and a variety of different arrangements of rows and columns of cells are possible: see Figs. 6-7 and 12).”
Although Berman teaches that allowing players to select elements to “activate” and “deactivate” them improves player enjoyment of the game (see paragraph 66, “player selection of corresponding elements and/or subportions and/or activation/deactiviation of corresponding elements and/or subportions improves player enjoyment because a player is provided with greater control and allows the player to form and apply strategy to the game”), Berman is silent on whether this player selection comprises “receive a symbol selection input from the player via the input device; wherein the symbol selection input comprises a selection of a cell of the array of hexagonal cells for placement of a “wild” symbol”, and Berman does not disclose that different playfields may be created by “delet[ing] one or more cells to the array of cells.”
Vancura teaches a method for playing a slot machine, wherein the player is able to select symbols to be converted into wild symbols (see the abstract, “With a selector the player chooses one or more symbols and a converter changes [them] to be wild for awarding according to the pay table and/or rules of play”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gaming system of Berman to allow the player to select symbols in the element array to be converted into wild symbols, as taught by Vancura, and they would have been motivated to do so to allow players to apply strategy to the game and thereby increase player enjoyment of the game, as taught by Berman.
Schmidt et al, henceforth Schmidt, teaches a video slot machine game wherein the size of the symbol array may be dynamically expanded or contracted by adding or removing at least one symbol position in response to gameplay events (see the abstract, lines 5-9). This is directly analogous to the limitation of “add[ing] or delet[ing] one or more cells to the array of cells to create different playfields having different numbers of winning sequences” recited in claim 10. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would find Schmidt’s teachings applicable to Berman’s game, as Schmidt specifically teaches that “non-symmetric” symbol array shapes may be utilized, including one that utilizes “honey-comb shaped symbol positions” in paragraph 89, lines 7-9. Finally, Schmidt teaches a motivation for implementing a dynamically-varying symbol array feature in a wagering game in paragraph 9, lines 2-6: “[…] there is always a need for better and more interesting games and features which provide the players with an ever-increasing level of excitement. Such added excitement may be provided by a dynamic variation of the size of the symbol array and, in some embodiments, a resulting varied number of paylines in different game plays.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the game taught by Berman (in view of Vancura) to include a dynamically-varying symbol array, as taught by Schmidt, and they would have been motivated to do so to make the gameplay more exciting for players, as taught by Schmidt.
Regarding claim 11, Berman (in view of Vancura and Schmidt) discloses “the system of claim 10, wherein the computer-readable storage medium further includes instructions to render the game field on the display (see Berman Fig. 12 and paragraph 6, lines 1-4, “Various embodiments of the invention concern a computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon which are executable [b]y the processor for facilitating a game”).”
Regarding claim 12, Berman (in view of Vancura and Schmidt) discloses “the system of claim 11, wherein the input device comprises one or more of a touchscreen, virtual buttons displayed on a touchscreen, physical buttons, a directional pad, levers, or joysticks (see Berman paragraph 121, lines 12-16, “the user interface 1206 may include one or more buttons, switches, joysticks, levers, pull-down handles, trackballs, voice-activated input, or any other user input system or mechanism that allows the user to participate in the particular gaming activity”).”
Regarding claim 13, Berman (in view of Vancura and Schmidt) discloses “the system of claim 11, further comprising a housing, wherein the user interface, processor, and computer-readable storage medium are positioned within or partially within the housing (see Berman paragraph 121, lines 3-5 and 7-10, “The slot machine 1200 is a structure including at least a computing system, a housing, and a display. The housing includes a base 1202 […] The base 1202 includes […] a user interface 1206 to allow the user to control and engage in play of the slot machine 1200”).”
Regarding claim 14, Berman (in view of Vancura and Schmidt) discloses “the system of claim 13, wherein the housing comprises one of an electronic gaming machine (EGM), a Video Gaming Machine (VGM), a mobile communication device, or a personal computer (see Berman paragraph 125, lines 3-6, “The functional modules used in connection with the invention may reside in a gaming machine as described, or may alternatively reside on a stand-alone or networked computer”).”
Regarding claim 15, Berman (in view of Vancura and Schmidt) discloses “the system of claim 11, wherein the outcome of the play is determined by comparing a player selected sequence of symbols to a plurality of winning sequences corresponding to a plurality of paylines (see paragraph 62, lines 7-12, “in one embodiment, only those symbols that are adjacent in a horizontal or vertical fashion will be deemed "adjacent" for purposes of providing a payout. Alternatively, only symbols that are horizontal, or that are vertical, or that are diagonal, may be deemed adjacent”; this would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as describing a “payline” in the traditional sense) and determining a prize award based on whether the player selected sequence of symbols matches any of the winning sequences (see Berman Fig. 12, which depicts a player winning 10 credits due to the sequence highlighted on the field matching one of the winning sequences indicated in the table at the top, with the wild symbol substituting for the third diamond).”
Regarding claim 16, Berman (in view of Vancura and Schmidt) discloses “the system of claim 11, wherein if a player selected sequence matches the at least one winning sequence, the processor is configured to determine a win value of the at least one win[n]ing sequence matched by the player selected sequence based on a ranking of the winning sequences (see Berman paragraph 81, lines 5-8, “the markings of square elements within any of the subportion boundaries 610, 620, 630 and 640 may be used to form a poker hand, the poker hand being the best poker hand possible with the cards in the subportions”); wherein the outcome comprises a plurality of win value[s] (see Berman Fig. 12: the table at the top shows a plurality of win values awarded for different sequences); and wherein one or more of the win values exceeds a play amount of the skill-based game (see Berman Fig. 12: the player has won 10 credits due to the occurrence of 3 adjacent diamonds, while only having wagered 1 credit on the current play of the game).”
9. Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berman et al (U.S. Patent No 20100216540) in view of Vancura (U.S. Patent No 20060172796) and Bowers et al (WIPO Patent No 2010051442).
Regarding claim 17, Berman discloses “an apparatus configured for operation of a skill game, the apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled with and readable by the processor and storing therein instructions (see Berman paragraph 6, lines 1-4, “Various embodiments of the invention concern a computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon which are executable [b]y the processor for facilitating a game) that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receive a play request from a player to initiate at least one play of the skill game (see Berman paragraph 121, lines 23-25, “The user input may include a plurality of buttons 1008, which allow the user to initiate the game play in accordance with the invention”); render, in response to receiving the play request, a game field on a display, the game field having an array of cells including a first sequence of symbols arranged within the cells of the array of cells (see Berman Fig. 12); wherein the array of cells comprises at least three columns of cells and at least two rows of cells, with each cell of each row of cells being offset from an adjacent cell of the row of cells (Berman Fig. 12); […] determine a game outcome of the play of the skill game based on a position of each symbol and the wild symbol in the player selected [sequence] of symbols relative to a plurality of winning sequences (see Berman Fig. 12: the table at the top indicates payouts for fully complete sequences, but the wild symbol has allowed the player to win 10 credits despite there only being a partially complete sequence of 2 adjacent diamonds); and wherein one or more of the plurality of winning sequences have different prize values obtainable by the player based on a final arrangement of the symbols in the player selected [sequence] of symbols (see Berman Fig. 12: the table at the top shows a plurality of win values awarded for different sequences).”
Although Berman teaches that allowing players to select elements to “activate” and “deactivate” them improves player enjoyment of the game (see paragraph 66, “player selection of corresponding elements and/or subportions and/or activation/deactiviation of corresponding elements and/or subportions improves player enjoyment because a player is provided with greater control and allows the player to form and apply strategy to the game”), Berman is silent on whether this player selection comprises “receiv[ing] a symbol selection input by the player selecting at least one symbol of the first sequence of symbols and changing the at least one symbol from an initial symbol to a “wild” symbol so as to create a player selected sequence of symbols including the “wild” symbol within the array of cells”, and Berman does not disclose “halting the play of the skill game after one or more of (a) the selection of a symbol to be changed to a “wild” symbol has been received, or (b) a selected time for the play of the skill game has lapsed.”
Vancura teaches a method for playing a slot machine, wherein the player is able to select symbols to be converted into wild symbols (see the abstract, “With a selector the player chooses one or more symbols and a converter changes [them] to be wild for awarding according to the pay table and/or rules of play”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gaming system of Berman to allow the player to select symbols in the element array to be converted into wild symbols, as taught by Vancura, and they would have been motivated to do so to allow players to apply strategy to the game and thereby increase player enjoyment of the game, as taught by Berman.
Bowers teaches a wagering game system that rewards players based on their skill (see paragraph 16, lines 1-3 and 5-7, “Some embodiments include a system comprising a wagering game machine that comprises an activity tracking unit configured to track accomplishments of skill-based goals […] award monetary amounts, from the limited award amount, based on skill-based goals achieved by a player account”). Bowers also teaches ending the game after a certain amount of time has elapsed (see paragraph 60, lines 24-26, “Once the game penalty meter reaches a limit (e.g., once all of the health and/or lives are depleted, once a game time runs out, one a timed bonus multiplier has expired, etc.), the game may end”). Finally, Bowers teaches a motivation for implementing game mechanics from skill-based games into wagering games, including modifying a player’s score based on completion time, in paragraph 91, bullet point 7, lines 1-4: “The system can encourage players to complete task, events, interactions, etc. in a timely manner by modifying a value of bonus awards, points, scores, or other wagering game achievements based on an amount of time that a player takes to complete the tasks.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gaming system of Berman (in view of Vancura) to implement game mechanics from skill-based games, such as ending the game after a certain amount of time has elapsed, as taught by Bowers, and they would have been motivated to do so to further incentivize players to play the wagering game, and they would have been motivated to do so to ensure game events are completed in a timely manner, as taught by Bowers.
Regarding claim 18, Berman (in view of Vancura and Bowers) discloses “the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the array of cells is variable; and wherein the processor further includes instructions configured to generate variable game fields for the skill game including arrays of different numbers of rows and columns of cells in a staggered arrangement (Berman specifically teaches marking a “play area”, wherein in some embodiments only the elements inside the play area are counted when determining if a winning combination has occurred: see paragraph 5, lines 6-10, “[…] at least some correspondingly marked elements of the second grid framing the activated portion of the first grid and causing the portion to be activated, and evaluating at least some elements of the first grid to identify winning combinations of element markings within the activated portion”; these “play areas” are dynamically created by the player and a variety of different arrangements of rows and columns of cells are possible: see Figs. 6-7 and 12).”
Regarding claim 19, Berman (in view of Vancura and Bowers) discloses “the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the outcome of the play of the skill game comprises one or more different win values or a loss (see paragraph 81, lines 2-6 and 7-8, “The markings of the square elements within subportion boundaries can be used in various different ways to determine when a player has won. For example, the markings of square elements within any of the subportion boundaries 610, 620, 630 and 640 may be used to form a poker hand […] multiple poker hands may be formed”).”
Regarding claim 20, Berman (in view of Vancura and Bowers) discloses “the apparatus of claim 19, wherein the win values are based on a ranking of the winning sequences (see Berman paragraph 81, lines 5-8, “the markings of square elements within any of the subportion boundaries 610, 620, 630 and 640 may be used to form a poker hand, the poker hand being the best poker hand possible with the cards in the subportions”); and wherein one or more of the win values exceeds a play amount of the skill game submitted by the player for the play of the skill game (see Berman Fig. 12: the player has won 10 credits due to the occurrence of 3 adjacent diamonds, while only having wagered 1 credit on the current play of the game).”
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH HAROLD JOHANSSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 8:30 to 6:30.
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.
/K.H.J./
Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/WILLIAM H MCCULLOCH JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights