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 .
This office action is in response to the application filed on 11/11/2024.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
[STEP 1] The claims recite at least one step or structure. Thus, the claim is to a machine which is/are one of the statutory categories of invention.
[STEP2A PRONG 1] Claims 1, 9, and 15 recite a gaming system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: cause a display, by a display device, of a persistence meter, for performing steps including determining inactivity associated with a persistence meter, determining whether an increment rate falls within a predetermined range, and tracking occurrences and non-occurrences of events over multiple intervals. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the recited steps are directed to the abstract idea of observing and evaluating game activity, applying game rules, and updating game progress based on these metrics can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. The recited steps therefore include a mental process. Courts have recognized that rules for playing games and managing game progress, and administering wagers constitute abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-20 recite an abstract idea.
[STEP2A PRONG II] The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception or meaningfully limit the practice of the judicial exception. The additional elements including the “processor,” and “memory device,” under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are generic computer components performing conventional functions of receiving, processing, storing, and transmitting data (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). The additional limitations merely implement the abstract idea on a computer and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Furthermore, the claimed limitations generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, namely a gaming environment, which is insufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
[STEP2B] The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements are generic computer components that are known to one of ordinary skill in the art. The recitation of these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, but rather adds mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea as described in specification (see pec [0073]-[0079]). Therefore, claims 1-20 are found to be directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim(s) 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 is/are dependent on supra claim(s) 1, 9,and 15 respectively and include all the limitations of the independent claim(s). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims, such as incrementing the persistence meter responsive to a persistence meter increment event, determining increment rates over a period of time or quantity of plays, or tracking particular activity or inactivity conditions, merely further recite how the rules are evaluated and/or applied.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are directed to a judicial exception without reciting significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 –
(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.
(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.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nicely et al. (US 8449388 B2).
In regards to claim 9, Nicely teaches a gaming system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that (Col. 8, lines 5-9; “In another embodiment, the computerized instructions for controlling any games are communicated from the central server, central controller or remote host to a gaming device local processor and memory devices.”),
when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: cause a display, by a display device (Col. 9, lines 61-63; “In one embodiment, as illustrated in FIG. 2A, the gaming device includes one or more display devices controlled by the processor.”), of a persistence meter (Col. 2, lines 26-30; “a progressive award includes a displayed meter (which is the current displayed value of the progressive award)”),
determine if an increment rate of the persistence meter is within a predetermined range of increment rates (Col. 5, lines 38-41; “the central server determines if the progressive award increase event occurs by comparing the actual progressive award growth rate to the designated growth rate.”), and
responsive to the determination being that the increment rate of the persistence meter is outside of the predetermined range of increment rates, cause a persistence meter increment event to occur (Col. 5, lines 41-43; “If the progressive award increase event occurs, the central server supplements the growth of the progressive award with part or all of any value of the supplemental fund or pool.”).
In regards to claim 10, Nicely further teaches the gaming system of Claim 9, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to the occurrence of the persistence meter increment event, cause the processor to increment the displayed persistence meter (Col. 5, lines 48-51; “the central server adds or injects value into the progressive award from the supplemental fund or pool to make up for this shortfall in the progressive award growth rate.”)
In regards to claim 12, Nicely further teaches the gaming system of Claim 9, wherein the increment rate of the persistence meter is determined over a period of time (Col. 5, lines 37-41; “at preset intervals based on a suitable sampling rate, the central server determines if the progressive award increase event occurs by comparing the actual progressive award growth rate to the designated growth rate.”).
In regards to claim 14, Nicely further teaches the gaming system of Claim 9, wherein the predetermined range of increment rates is associated with a dynamic range of increment rates (Col. 6, lines 42-44; “In one such embodiment, the central server enables a gaming system operator to specify different progressive award growth or incremental rates for different time periods.”) and (Col. 31, lines 13-18; “a progressive award is associated with different designated growth or incremental rates based on different periods of time. In this embodiment, the central server enables a gaming system operator to specify different progressive award growth or incremental rates for different time periods.”).
In regards to claim 15, Nicely teaches a gaming system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: cause a display, by a display device, of a persistence meter (Col. 8, lines 5-9; “In another embodiment, the computerized instructions for controlling any games are communicated from the central server, central controller or remote host to a gaming device local processor and memory devices.”) and (Col. 9, lines 61-63; “In one embodiment, as illustrated in FIG. 2A, the gaming device includes one or more display devices controlled by the processor.”) and (Col. 2, lines 27-29; “ For example, a progressive award includes a displayed meter (which is the current displayed value of the progressive award)”),
track occurrences of a first event over multiple intervals (Col. 5, lines 63-67 and Col. 6, lines 1-4, Col. 32, lines 21-29; “In different embodiments, an occurrence of a progressive award increase event may include, but not be limited to, a determination that the progressive award is incrementing at a rate below a designated growth rate, a determination that no contributions have been made to the progressive award during a given period of time, an elapsed period of time, a determination based on a frequency of an event over an elapsed period of time, a determination based on a plurality of events occurring over an elapsed period of time”) and (Col. 5, lines 37-41; “In this embodiment, at preset intervals based on a suitable sampling rate, the central server determines if the progressive award increase event occurs by comparing the actual progressive award growth rate to the designated growth rate.”)
modify the displayed persistence meter based on the tracked occurrences (Col. 28, lines 15-18; “the central server continues to increment the progressive award based only on wagers placed at the gaming devices associated with the progressive award.”)
track non-occurrences of a second event over the multiple intervals (Col. 32, lines 21-29; “It should be appreciated that the progressive award increase event may be any suitable event or non-occurrence of an event which may be tracked by the gaming system. In different embodiments, an occurrence of a progressive award increase event may include, but not be limited to…a determination that no contributions have been made to the progressive award during a given period of time, an elapsed period of time”)
and modify the displayed persistence meter based on the tracked non-occurrences (Col. 5, lines 41-50; “If the progressive award increase event occurs, the central server supplements the growth of the progressive award with part or all of any value of the supplemental fund or pool…the central server adds or injects value into the progressive award from the supplemental fund or pool to make up for this shortfall in the progressive award growth rate.”)
In regards to claim 19, Nicely further teaches the gaming system of Claim 15, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to a current state of the displayed persistence meter being above a threshold amount, cause the processor to disable any modifications of the persistence meter based on the tracked non-occurrences (Col. 27, lines 62-67 and Col. 28, lines 1-12; “the central server will monitor the progressive award and the incremental rate of the progressive award until the progressive award reaches $200,000 and then the central server will discontinue or otherwise stop monitoring the progressive award and the incremental rate of the progressive award.”).
In regards to claim 20, Nicely further teaches the gaming system of Claim 15, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to a current state of the displayed persistence meter being above a threshold amount, cause the processor to disable any tracking of the non-occurrences of the second event (Col. 27, lines 62-67 and Col. 28, lines 1-12; “the central server will monitor the progressive award and the incremental rate of the progressive award until the progressive award reaches $200,000 and then the central server will discontinue or otherwise stop monitoring the progressive award and the incremental rate of the progressive award.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicely et al. (US 8449388 B2) hereinafter Nicely, in view of Wolf et al. (US 10467855 B2), hereinafter Wolf.
In regards to claim 1, Nicely teaches a gaming system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that (Col. 8, lines 5-9; “In another embodiment, the computerized instructions for controlling any games are communicated from the central server, central controller or remote host to a gaming device local processor and memory devices.”), when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: cause a display, by a display device (Col. 8, lines 43-67; “In one embodiment, as illustrated in FIG. 2A, the gaming device includes one or more display devices controlled by the processor.”) and (Col. 9, lines 61-63; “In one embodiment, as illustrated in FIG. 2A, the gaming device includes one or more display devices controlled by the processor.”), of a persistence meter (Col. 2, lines 26-30; “a progressive award includes a displayed meter (which is the current displayed value of the progressive award)”). Nicely’s displayed progressive award meter represent accumulated game progression by incrementally increasing in response to gaming activity or supplemental increments.
determine an amount of inactivity associated with the persistence meter (Col. 5- Col. 6, lines 66-67 and lines 1-7; “an occurrence of a progressive award increase event may include, but not be limited to, a determination that the progressive award is incrementing at a rate below a designated growth rate, a determination that no contributions have been made to the progressive award during a given period of time, an elapsed period of time, a determination based on a frequency of an event over an elapsed period of time”),
automatically increment the displayed persistence meter (“the gaming system adds a value or amount to the progressive award independent of any value or amount directly attributed to the wagers placed”) and (“The central server utilizes the supplemental fund or pool to periodically add or inject value to the progressive award if the progressive award is not incrementing or growing at or above a designated rate.”) and (“the central server adds or injects value into the progressive award from the supplemental fund or pool to make up for this shortfall in the progressive award growth rate.”)
Nicely does not explicitly teach responsive to the determined amount of inactivity associated with the persistence meter reaching a threshold amount of inactivity. However, Wolf teaches determining an inactive status when player activity fails to meet a threshold over a period of time (Col. 4, lines 37-49; “An EGM may be classified as inactive status for several reasons. In certain embodiments, inactive status is associated with a credit balance of zero credits and no game play activity for a designated period of time. For example, a zero credit balance and no activity for four minutes evidence an inactive EGM. In certain embodiments, inactive status is associated with a player playing the EGM (i.e., by having credits on the EGM), but playing too slowly to qualify for active status. For example, a player may have credits on the credit meter of the EGM, but the player has not made a wager on a game or otherwise qualified for active status during the status qualification period.”),
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nicely’s gaming system with Wolf’s inactivity threshold determination and persistence meter modification because both references are directed to maintaining and managing persistence and/or progressive meters based on player activity. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that combining Wolf’s inactivity threshold with Nicely’s progressive meter management would have improved persistence meter operation by updating the meter after prolonged inactivity.
In regards to claim 2, Nicely further teaches the gaming system of Claim 1, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to the determined amount of inactivity associated with the persistence meter not reaching the threshold amount of inactivity, cause the processor to determine if a persistence meter increment event occurs (Col. 5, lines 13-26“The central server utilizes the reset or initial value to fund the progressive award upon the initial implementation of the progressive award or after the progressive award is provided to a player. The central server utilizes the supplemental fund or pool to periodically add or inject value to the progressive award if the progressive award is not incrementing or growing at or above a designated rate. In other words, the central server utilizes part, but not all, of the designated fund to seed or initially fund the progressive award and if necessary, periodically adds at least part of the designated fund to the progressive award such that the progressive award at least appears to grow or increment based on gaming activity at the gaming devices associated with the progressive award.”).
In regards to claim 3, Nicely teaches the gaming system of Claim 2, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to an occurrence of the persistence meter increment event, cause the processor to increment the displayed persistence meter. (Col. 5, lines 20-26; “In other words, the central server utilizes part, but not all, of the designated fund to seed or initially fund the progressive award and if necessary, periodically adds at least part of the designated fund to the progressive award such that the progressive award at least appears to grow or increment based on gaming activity at the gaming devices associated with the progressive award.”)
In regards to claim 5, Nicely further teaches the gaming system of Claim 1, wherein the determined amount of inactivity associated with the persistence meter is associated with no wagering activity over a period of time (Col. 5-6, lines 63-67 and lines 1-4, Col. 32, lines 21-29; “It should be appreciated that the progressive award increase event may be any suitable event or non-occurrence of an event which may be tracked by the gaming system. In different embodiments, an occurrence of a progressive award increase event may include…a determination that no contributions have been made to the progressive award during a given period of time, an elapsed period of time”). Nicely’s progressive contributions are derived from wagers, no contributions over a period is interpreted as no wagering activity over that period.
In regards to claim 6, Nicely does not teach wherein the determined amount of inactivity associated with the persistence meter is associated with a credit meter being below a threshold amount over a period of time. However, Wolf teaches determining inactivity based on credit balance below a threshold (Col. 4, lines 38-41; “In certain embodiments, inactive status is associated with a credit balance of zero credits and no game play activity for a designated period of time.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nicely’s inactivity determination with Wolf’s credit balance inactivity criteria because both references address monitoring player activity to trigger meter and/or award events. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that zero credits is a value below any positive threshold amount and incorporating a credit balance criteria provides an indicator of player inactivity.
In regards to claim 7, Nicely does not teach wherein the determination of the amount of inactivity associated with the persistence meter occurs independent of an attract mode.
However, Wolf teaches that the determination of the amount of inactivity corresponding with the meter do not depend on the EGM being in attract mode (Col. 3, lines 53-58; “the gaming system periodically determines a status of an EGM as indicated in block 102. In certain embodiments, the gaming system determines a status of the EGM at preset intervals based on a suitable sampling rate. The sampling rate can be based on any suitable criteria, such as time elapsed.”) and (Col. 4, lines 13-21; “actively playing during a status qualification period means that the player is placing wagers to play one or more games at least at a predefined minimum rate during a predefined time period.”) and (Col. 4, lines 38-45; “inactive status is associated with a credit balance of zero credits and no game play activity for a designated period of time…inactive status is associated with a player playing the EGM (i.e., by having credits on the EGM), but playing too slowly to qualify for active status.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nicely’s system to incorporate Wolf’s determination criteria to be independent of an attract mode because the modification would provide a more reliable indication of actual player inactivity by avoiding reliance on any particular operating mode of the gaming device, thereby allowing consistent inactivity monitoring whether or not the device is operating in an attract mode.
In regards to claim 8, Nicely teaches the gaming system of Claim 1, wherein the determination of the amount of inactivity associated with the persistence meter occurs based on the persistence meter being below a threshold amount (Col. 32, lines 16-20; “the central server monitors the value of the progressive award relative to a threshold value for the progressive award and determines if a progressive award increase event occurs based on this comparison.”).
In regards to claim 13, Nicely teaches the gaming system of claim 9 as set forth in the 102 rejection above, including that the increment rate of the meter is determined at preset intervals based on a suitable sampling rate (Col. 5, lines 38-41; “In this embodiment, at preset intervals based on a suitable sampling rate, the central server determines if the progressive award increase event occurs by comparing the actual progressive award growth rate to the designated growth rate.”).
Nicely does not explicitly wherein the increment rate of the persistence meter is determined over a quantity of plays of a game. However, Wolf teaches that a gaming status determination may use a quantity of plays as a metric (Col.4, lines 24-27; “In another alternative embodiment, the determination of the active status may be based on a designated minimum number of plays of the game or number of wagers on the game in a designated time period.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nicely’s rate sampling to be measured over a quantity of plays as taught by Wolf. Nicely expressly states that the sampling could be based on any suitable criteria and Wolf identifies quantity of plays as a interchangeable metric for measuring gaming activity. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using a quantity of plays is functionally interchangeable with time sampling for measuring gaming activity.
In regards to claim 18, Nicely teaches the gaming system of claim 15 as set forth in the 102 rejection above, including monitoring events over elapsed time and event frequency conditions associated with a progressive award. Nicely does not explicitly teach teaches wherein the first event comprises a persistence meter activity-based event.
However, Wolf teaches classifying an EGM’s status as either active or inactive based on specific events (Col. 4, lines 11-19; “In these embodiments, active status means that the EGM is being actively played by a player during a status qualification period. In one embodiment, actively playing during a status qualification period means that the player is placing wagers to play one or more games at least at a predefined minimum rate during a predefined time period. For example, the EGM may be in active status when a player has made at least one play of the game in a fifteen second period prior to the status determination.”) and (Col. 4, lines 21-27; “In another embodiment, the active status may alternatively or additionally be based on the amount wagered on the plays of the games during a status qualification period. In another alternative embodiment, the determination of the active status may be based on a designated minimum number of plays of the game or number of wagers on the game in a designated time period.”)
and the second event comprises a persistence meter inactivity-based event (Col. 4, lines 35-45; “In these embodiments, inactive status means that the EGM is not being actively played by a player during the status qualification period. An EGM may be classified as inactive status for several reasons. In certain embodiments, inactive status is associated with a credit balance of zero credits and no game play activity for a designated period of time. For example, a zero credit balance and no activity for four minutes evidence an inactive EGM…In certain embodiments, inactive status is associated with a player playing the EGM (i.e., by having credits on the EGM), but playing too slowly to qualify for active status.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nicely’s occurrence and non-occurrence tracking events using Wolf’s active and in-active status. One of ordinary skill in the art would apply Wolf’s device status framework to Nicely’s meter modification triggers because Wolf’s exclusive active/inactive classification provides a concrete categorization for the occurrence or non-occurrence of an event.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicely et al. (US 8449388 B2) in view of Wolf et al. (US 10467855 B2) and further in view of Jaffe (US 20240273975 A1), hereinafter Jaffe.
In regards to claim 4, Nicely does not explicitly teach the gaming system of Claim 1, wherein the persistence meter comprises a perceived persistence meter. However, Jaffe teaches a perceived persistence meter in which the displayed meter progress is separate from the actual probability of the associated feature being awarded (Par. [0046]; “During a player's gaming session, any growth in size of the persistent elements 212, 214 and 216 persists from one wagering game cycle to the next such that the player perceives that a game feature corresponding to a persistent element may be getting closer to being awarded. When the size of the persistent elements has no bearing on whether the associated game feature will actually be awarded, this is known as “perceived persistence.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to configure the persistence meter of the Nicely and Wolf combination as a perceived persistence meter as taught by Jaffe. Jaffe expressly teaches that separating the meter growth from the actual award probability provides a player engagement benefit. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying a perceived persistence technique to the combined teachings of Nicely and Wolf would improve player engagement.
Claim(s) 11, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicely et al. (US 8449388 B2) in view of Jaffe (US 20240273975 A1).
In regards to claim 11, Nicely teaches the gaming system of claim 9 as set forth in the 102 rejection above, including (Col. 5, lines 37-41; “In this embodiment, at preset intervals based on a suitable sampling rate, the central server determines if the progressive award increase event occurs by comparing the actual progressive award growth rate to the designated growth rate.”) and (Col. 5, lines 51-62; “For example, if a designated incremental growth rate of a progressive award is, on average, $0.05 per second over a designated period of time and the progressive award is currently incrementing at an average of $0.03 per second over a sampled period of time (due to the number of wagers currently placed on the gaming devices associated with the progressive award), the central server utilizes any value or amount in the supplemental fund or pool to add a value to the progressive award such that the progressive award is continually incrementing or growing at least at the designated incremental growth rate of an average of $0.05 per second over the designated period of time.”). Nicely does not explicitly teach the gaming system of Claim 9, wherein the persistence meter comprises a perceived persistence meter.
However, Jaffe explicitly teaches perceived persistence (Par. [0046]; “During a player's gaming session, any growth in size of the persistent elements 212, 214 and 216 persists from one wagering game cycle to the next such that the player perceives that a game feature corresponding to a persistent element may be getting closer to being awarded. When the size of the persistent elements has no bearing on whether the associated game feature will actually be awarded, this is known as “perceived persistence.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nicely’s persistence meter as a perceived persistence meter as taught by Jaffe because Jaffe expressly teaches that presenting meter growth independent of the actual probability of the associated feature being awarded promotes a perception of progress that maintains player engagement. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that applying Jaffe’s persistence meter presentation technique to Nicely’s meter as doing so promotes a perception of progress that would enhance player engagement.
In regards to claim 16, Nicely teaches the gaming system of claim 15 as set forth in the 102 rejection above, including that progressive award increase events can occur due to many different triggers (“a randomly determined event, a predetermined event, a determination based on a generated symbol or symbol combination, a determination based on the status of one or more players (such as determined through a player tracking system), a determination based on a gaming system operator and any combination thereof.”)). Nicely does not explicitly teach the gaming system of Claim 15, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to trigger a feature independent of a current state of the displayed persistence meter
However, Jaffe teaches that awarding the feature is independent of prior game status (Par. [0051]; “ In other embodiments, the appearance of multiple coins in the array has no effect on the probability of awarding the game features associated with the persistent elements corresponding to the coins appearing in the array.”) and (Par. [0050]; “At step 326, the game-logic circuitry randomly determines, via the RNG, whether or not to award the game…This random determination is independent of any prior wagering game cycles.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Jaffe’s independently triggered feature award into Nicely’s system to provide additional feature award opportunities that are not dependent on the current state of the persistence meter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that combining the teachings of Nicely and Jaffe would improve player engagement and excitement.
In regards to claim 17, Jaffe further teaches the gaming system of Claim 15, wherein the persistence meter comprises a perceived persistence meter (Par. [0046]; “perceived meter”). The claim recites the same limitation as claims 4 and 11, and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
Conclusion
Accordingly claims 1-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BUSHIRA MUSA whose telephone number is (571)272-9156. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-5pm.
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 5712701344. 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.
/B.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights