CTNF 18/933,795 CTNF 83393 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 112 07-30-02 AIA 2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 3. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 14 recites a priority but it is not known what role it plays the context of Claim 1. Is the identification an internal determination? Is it present to the player in any way? What are the criteria for “a best one”? To advance prosecution, Claim 14 is construed to mean that the option with the most value is communicated to the player. 4. Claim 20 lacks antecedent bases for “wherein transmitting the second chance selection further comprises”. It is unclear where the original transmitting has taken place. To advance prosecution, Examiner construes the transmitting to be the game machine’s display of the bonus feature. Appropriate action is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 5. 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. 6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. 7. Step 1 Claims 1-20 are directed to a system/apparatus or method meeting the requirements for Step 1. 8. Step 2A Prong 1 In independent Claim 1 (and similarly for Claims 15 and 20), the following italicized steps recite abstract wagering which is a certain method of organizing human activity: Claim 1 1. A gaming device comprising: a display device; an input device; a processor circuit; and a memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to: receive a wager for a wagering game at the gaming device, the wagering game comprising: a plurality of game symbol positions; and receive, from a player and via the input device, a selection of a feature that is provided after the wager is complete; determine a first prize outcome of the feature; and receive, after determining the first prize outcome of the feature, a second chance selection from a plurality of second chance options for the player to earn a second prize outcome, wherein receiving the second chance selection further comprises receiving an amount that is a first portion of the first prize outcome that is less than the first prize outcome, wherein the second chance selection from the plurality of second chance options for the player to earn the second prize outcome corresponds to the first portion of the first prize outcome to be selected for a first one of the plurality of second chance options and a second portion of the first prize outcome to be selected for the first one of the plurality of second chance options, and wherein first portion is played before the second portion. 15. A method comprising: receiving, at a gaming device, a wager for a wagering game comprising a plurality of game symbol positions and a plurality of paylines, each payline associated with a subset of game symbol positions; receiving, by a processor circuit of the gaming device, a selection of a first feature that is provided after the wager is complete; determining a first prize outcome of the first feature; and transmitting, after receiving the first prize outcome of the feature, a second chance selection from a plurality of second chance options for a player to earn a second prize outcome, wherein the second chance selection from the plurality of second chance options for the player to earn the second prize outcome corresponds to a first portion of the first prize outcome to be selected for a first one of the plurality of second chance options and a second portion of the first prize outcome to be selected for a second one of the plurality of second chance options. 20. A system comprising: a processor circuit; and a memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to: receive a wager for a wagering game at a gaming device, the wagering game comprising: a plurality of game symbol positions; and a plurality of paylines, each payline associated with a subset of game symbol positions; receive, from a player and via a graphical user interface, a selection of a feature that is provided after the wager is complete; determine a first prize outcome of the feature; and receive, after determining the first prize outcome of the feature, a second chance selection from a plurality of second chance options for the player to earn a second prize outcome, wherein before receiving the second chance selection, the processor circuit is further caused to generate a priority for each of the plurality of second chance options relative to one another, wherein transmitting the second chance selection further comprises: forfeiting an amount that is a first portion of the first prize outcome that is less than the first prize outcome, wherein the second chance selection from the plurality of second chance options for the player to earn the second prize outcome corresponds to the first portion of the first prize outcome to be selected for a first one of the plurality of second chance options and a second portion of the first prize outcome to be selected for a second one of the plurality of second chance options. This gaming system is similar to the gaming system in Savvy Dog Sys. v. Pa. Coin, LLC , 2023-1073 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 21, 2024) which describes an electronic gaming method and system with a preview screen, specifically for a game called "Tic-Tac-Fruit". The Federal Circuit held that the claims directed to a skill-based element by allowing players to preview game setups before playing, was directed to an abstract idea. Here, each claim, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations according to wagering. 9. Step 2A Prong II The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. According to MPEP 2106, a consideration indicative of integration into a practical application includes improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular application (a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components for filtering Internet content, as discussed in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC , 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (MPEP § 2106.05(d)). 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)). Here, the recited processor, memory, plurality of instructions, gaming device, and display are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than in name only) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Applicant’s Specification does not disclose that the processor, memory, set of instructions are directed to a technological solution to a technological problem that “overcome some sort of technical difficulty.” citing ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 768 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Similar to the disclosure in Savvy Dog, Applicant’s specification never suggests that the processor is improved from a technical perspective, or that it would operate differently than it otherwise could but instead “the disclosed processor is merely a means for setting up and playing the game where the game processor generates an electronic game display on a game terminal” (see ChargePoint , 920 F.3d at 768). According to Applicant, [0089] “The present disclosure contemplates a variety of different gaming systems each having one or more of a plurality of different features, attributes, or characteristics. It should be appreciated that a "gaming system" as used herein refers to various configurations of: (a) one or more central servers, central controllers, or remote hosts; (b) one or more gaming devices; and/or (c) one or more personal gaming devices, such as desktop computers, laptop computers, tablet computers or computing devices, PDAs, mobile telephones such as smart phones, and other mobile computing devices.” And [0096] “Computer program code for carrying out operations for aspects ofthe present disclosure may be written in any combination of one or more programming languages, including an object oriented programming language such as Java, Scala, Smalltalk, Eiffel, JADE, Emerald, C++, C#, VB.NET, Python or the like, conventional procedural programming languages, such as the "C" programming language, Visual Basic, Fortran 2003, Perl, Common Business Oriented Language ("COBOL") 2002, PHP: Hypertext Processor ("PHP"), Advanced Business Application Programming ("ABAP"), dynamic programming languages such as Python, Ruby and Groovy, or other programming languages. The program code may execute entirely on the user's computer, partly on the user's computer, as a stand-alone software package, partly on the user's computer and partly on a remote computer or entirely on the remote computer or server. In the latter scenario, the remote computer may be connected to the user's computer through any type of network, including a local area network (LAN) or a wide area network (WAN), or the connection may be made to an external computer (for example, through the Internet using an Internet Service Provider) or in a cloud computing environment or offered as a service such as a Software as a Service (SaaS).” Consequently, these devices and programming are viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer or as a means to automate the steps. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l , 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). There does not appear to be any extra-solution activity but for the above devices employed as tools. Even when the limitations are viewed in combination, the additional elements in this claim do no more than automate the steps needed to be performed, using the one of more computer components as tools. While this type of automation is an improvement in a general sense as opposed to performance manually, there is no change to the computers and other technology that are recited in the claim as automating the abstract ideas, and thus this claim cannot improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc. , 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Latric Sys. , 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services , 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality). Accordingly, each claim, as a whole, does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. Thus, Claim 1, and similarly Claims 15 and 20, lack the eligibility requirements of Step 2 Prong II. 10. Step 2B According to the 2019 PEG, in addition to the considerations discussed in Step 2A, an additional consideration indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) is the addition of a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Conversely, an additional consideration not indicative of an inventive concept is simply appending well-understood, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea (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. There are no elements evaluated under Step 2A but for the devices used as tools. Claim 1, and similarly Claims 15 and 20, do not recite additional elements, individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, Claims 1, 15, and 20 are ineligible. 11. Dependent Claims 2-14 and 16-19 Claims 2-14 and 16-19 recite more abstract rules for playing the wagering game. Thus, none of the claims supply a practical application or inventive concept sufficient to transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 12. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA 13. Claim s 1-5, 7, 10-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 ( a1, a2 ) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0385407 to Hiten . In Reference to Claims 1, 10, 11, 13, and 15 Hiten discloses a gaming machine (Fig. 1), comprising: a display device (Fig. 1 120); an input device (Fig. 1 114); a processor circuit (Fig. 2 processor 202); and a memory comprising machine-readable instructions that (Fig. 2 memory 204 and instructions [0066]), when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to: receive a wager for a wagering game at a gaming device (Fig. 3 305), the wagering game comprising: a plurality of game and symbol positions (Fig. 4A 420a - o); and a plurality of paylines, each payline being associated with a difference set of game symbol positions (Fig. 4A paylines 445, 447 associated this different subsets of symbols), receive, from a player and via the input device, a selection of a feature that is provided after the wager is complete (Examiner construes the wager is complete once it is received in step Fig. 3 305, and during a base game, player input selects payline 447 (Fig. 4A) and receives a payline bonus feature (Figs. 4B and Fig. 5), determine a first prize outcome of the feature (after three free spins, the bonus feature award yields a prize outcome (Fig. 4F), {transmitting a second chance selection from a plurality of second chance options for a player to earn a second prize outcome}, and receive, after determining the first prize outcome of the feature, a second chance selection from a plurality of second chance options for the player to earn a second prize outcome (Figs. 4G and Fig. 4H where player can select one or more symbols to replace), wherein receiving the second chance selection further comprises receiving an amount that is a first portion of the first prize outcome that is less than the first prize outcome (Fig. 4H each symbol’s credit value is an amount that is a portion of the total outcome), wherein the second chance selection from the plurality of second chance options for the player to earn the second prize outcome corresponds to the first portion of the first prize outcome to be selected for a first {second} one of the plurality of second chance options (Fig. 4H cursor 456 illustrates player selection of Sun 420j for replacement, the value of Sun 420j corresponds with the first portion of 150 credits, as it is less than the total number of Sun’s credits awarded) and a second portion of the first prize outcome to be selected for the first one of the plurality of second chance options (Fig. 4H cursor 457 illustrates player selection of Sun 420n for replacement, the value ofSun 420n corresponds with the second portion of 50 credits), and wherein first portion is played before the second portion (Figs. 4I-4K where a player does not have to select all at once i.e., first portion, Sun 420j can be played before second portion, Sun 420n because “[i]n some embodiments, where more than one spin in the bonus game is available, the player may strategically select additional lower credit award values knowing that the player has more than one additional opportunity to improve the existing lower value offered award values.” [0170]). In Reference to Claim 2 Hiten discloses forfeiting the first prize outcome (Fig. 3D 380, [0006] player may risk one or more portions of an award offer, player forfeits the offered award values associated with the removed persistent {frozen} symbols [0111]). In Reference to Claim 3 For each free spin remaining in Fig 4H, the feature is played again for the intended use of improving a prize outcome. Hiten discloses feature with replacement symbols may improve an award as the “player risks any offered award to obtain a higher offer award value” [0114], Fig. 4G-4H select frozen symbol game). In Reference to Claim 4 For each free spin and selection of a different Sun symbol, the feature is different. In Reference to Claim 5 Examiner construes this limitation as after deciding to not further play the first feature but before cashing out to opt to return to the base game and play for another different feature (Fig. 3B, and one of the other payline bonus features in Fig. 5). In Reference to Claim 7 Examiner construes this limitation as receiving another payline bonus feature win from among the options in Fig. 5 when the player chooses not to cash out but play further). In Reference to Claim 12 Hiten displays the first and second and chance options on different portions of the display device simultaneously (Figs. 4H shows Suns that can be each be selected as chance options which are simultaneous displayed on different parts of the display). In Reference to Claim 14 Applicant describes the use of priority to flag “the best one” (Spec. [0080]) and “first optimal choice” (Fig. 4). Examiner construes the limitation reasonably broadly in light of the specification to mean that the option with the most value is communicated to the player. Hiten communicates which second chance selections have a highest credit value (Fig. 4H) which are an identification of priority In Reference to Claims 16 and 17 Hiten is understood to allow both a selection of Suns causing a re-spin of the reels for as many free spin the player has left and before cashing out, Hiten allows the player to return to the base game where a different {second} feature can be played if it is activated by falling on a payline (Fig, 5). Examiner construes “taking the first prize outcome” as any forfeitures the player makes when selecting replacement symbols. In Reference to Claim 19 See rejection of Claims 1, 2, 11, and 15. In Reference to Claim 20 See rejection of Claims 1, 14, 15, and 19 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 14. 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. 07-20-aia AIA 15. 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. 07-23-aia AIA 16. 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. 07-21-aia AIA 17. Claim s 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiten in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0385410 to Oberberger . In Reference to Claim 6 Hiten discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose wherein the wager, the feature and a second feature comprise a same return to player, RTP, metric that determines odds of winning or values of the second prize outcome depend on a value of the first prize outcome. According to Oberberger, second chance games in regulated casinos (Titl.) payout schedules based on randomized monetary return to player ([0106]). Specifically, “[o]ver a sufficiently long period of time, the value of a Payout Schedule converges to a constant, designed Value (94.8% in the previous Roulette example). For purposes of calculating the theoretical Return to Player (RTP) of a game, regardless of the individual details comprising a Payout Schedule (Roulette vs. Slot Machine vs. other), if the Values of two Payout Schedules (as calculated above) are the same, then the Theoretical Return to Player for the wager will be the same. As such, the use of the term “Value of the Payout Schedule” is inclusive of every possible way that a payout schedule can be constructed.” [0119]. One of skill in the art would be aware of the regulation of wagering games to include the return to player of Oberberger to modify the invention of Hiten as the gaming machine of Hiten is similarly regulated. The Courts have held that use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is indicia of obviousness. In Reference to Claim 9 Hiten also discloses that awards are accumulated from all features into a total bonus win ([0018, 0173]). However, the combination of references does not explicitly disclose values of the second prize outcomes depending on a value of the first prize outcome. One of skill in the art would look to the return to player of Oberberger to conclude that all combinations and permutations of the awards are interdependent so as not to violate the regulated return to player to determine a total outcome coming from the primary and bonus games according to Hitem ([0018, 0178]) . 07-21-aia AIA 18. Claim s 8 and 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiten in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2013/0184061 to Meunier . Hilten discloses the invention substantially as claimed to include a first and second chance selection where the second chance selection is from among a plurality of second change options to earn a subsequent prize outcome (See rejection of Claims 1, 15 and as expressed in Claims 5, 16 and 17). However, the reference does not explicitly disclose the total winnings subject to a responsible gaming threshold causing ceasing to provide further gaming. Examiner construes the limitation occurring in circumstances where a player is shown a total winning value and keeps asserting second chance outcomes but the outcomes are resulting in reductions to the total winning value such that the player is prevent from further losses as the gaming machine determines a responsible gaming limit has been reached and ceases the bonus play. One of skill in the art would be aware of the responsible gaming environment in gaming machines of Meunier (Titl.). According to Meunier, “[a]n electronic gaming machine (EGM) or game computer for on-line gaming receives a player's unique ID. The host system then detects a stored status level of the player and communicates the status level to the game computer. The status level may be determined by a survey answered by the player identifying self-impose loss limits. The game computer then presents a plurality of games available to the player based on the status level of the player, there being different sets of games presented to the player depending on the player's status level. Games associated with a higher status level may be more complex and/or have higher possible wagering limits. The player selects and plays one of the games. Over time, the host system accumulates information about the player's performance and imposes the loss limits and/or gaming time limits.” (Abstr.) Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify Hiten with the responsible gaming limit of Meunier to achieve the predictable result of ceasing the second chance options of the bonus feature sparing the player from further reduction in the total winning value. The Courts have held that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way to be indicia of obviousness . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 19. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). 20. A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). 21. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. 08-34 AIA Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,148,266 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant genus claim is anticipated by the granted species claim . U.S. Pat. No. 12,148,266 U.S. Pat. App. No. 18/933,795 15. A method comprising: receiving, at a gaming device, a wager for a wagering game comprising a plurality of game symbol positions and a plurality of paylines, each payline associated with a subset of game symbol positions; receiving, by a processor circuit of the gaming device, a selection of a first feature that is provided after the wager is complete; determining a first prize outcome of the first feature; and transmitting, after receiving the first prize outcome of the feature, a second chance selection from a plurality of second chance options for a player to earn a second prize outcome, wherein the plurality of second chance options comprises a selection to re-spin the first feature corresponding to the first prize outcome and a selection to play a second feature that is different from the first feature, wherein the second chance selection from the plurality of second chance options for the player to earn the second prize outcome corresponds to a first portion of the first prize outcome to be selected for a first one of the plurality of second chance options and a second portion of the first prize outcome to be selected for a second one of the plurality of second chance options. 15. A method comprising: receiving, at a gaming device, a wager for a wagering game comprising a plurality of game symbol positions and a plurality of paylines, each payline associated with a subset of game symbol positions; receiving, by a processor circuit of the gaming device, a selection of a first feature that is provided after the wager is complete; determining a first prize outcome of the first feature; and transmitting, after receiving the first prize outcome of the feature, a second chance selection from a plurality of second chance options for a player to earn a second prize outcome, wherein the second chance selection from the plurality of second chance options for the player to earn the second prize outcome corresponds to a first portion of the first prize outcome to be selected for a first one of the plurality of second chance options and a second portion of the first prize outcome to be selected for a second one of the plurality of second chance options . Conclusion 07-96 AIA 23. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is in the Notice of References Cited . 24. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul A. D’Agostino whose telephone number is (571) 270-1992. 25. 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. 26. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Vasat can be reached on (571) 270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-2992. /PAUL A D'AGOSTINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/933,795 Page 2 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/933,795 Page 3 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/933,795 Page 4 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/933,795 Page 5 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/933,795 Page 6 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/933,795 Page 7 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/933,795 Page 8 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/933,795 Page 9 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/933,795 Page 10 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/933,795 Page 11 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/933,795 Page 12 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/933,795 Page 13 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/933,795 Page 14 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/933,795 Page 15 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/933,795 Page 16 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/933,795 Page 17 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/933,795 Page 18 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/933,795 Page 19 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/933,795 Page 20 Art Unit: 3715
Prosecution Insights