DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Step 1 – Statutory category?
Independent claims 1, 8, & 16 are each directed to “a gaming system”. These claims are directed to machines, which is one of the statutory categories of invention and thus the claims satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong One – Abstract idea?
When properly constructed as a whole, independent claims 1, 8, & 16 recite operates in which a processor causes a display device to display symbol displays, pots, and features, and for different activations of the symbol displays, various “trigger symbol combinations” and “activators”, together with automatic activation of pots and features depending on which symbol combinations and activators occur. The dependent claims further specify aspects such as relative award amounts or expected award amounts for secondary games under different features (e.g. claims 3-5, 10-13, 18-19), whether pots are perceived persistent or actually persistent (e.g. claims 6-7, 14-15, 20), and whether the third pot is displayed (e.g. claims 2, 9, & 17).
These limitations, taken together, describe rules and logic for playing and managing a game and awarding prizes (e.g. how pots and features are activated, how awards differ among features, how pots are perceived or maintained, etc.), and the presentation of that information to the player. Such subject matter falls within the judicial exception of “abstract idea”. More specifically: (i) certain methods of organizing human activity including fundamental economics practices and wagering or prize allocation schemes, and (ii) mental processes and presentation of information (e.g. displaying game states, award structures, conditions, etc.).
The focus of the claims is on the game rules and award progression, such as what is displayed, when it is displayed, and how that affects award amounts. The claims do not focus on any improvement to computer technology or display technology. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Integration into a practical application?
Under this prong, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
The additional elements beyond the abstract idea in the independent claims consist of:
a processor;
a memory device storing instructions; and
a display device, with the processor “causing display” of the various information to be displayed including symbols, pots, features, etc.
These generic computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are used only for their conventional functions of storing instructions, executing them, and outputting information to a display. There is no recitation of:
any improvement to the functioning of the processor, memory or display device;
any technological solution to a problem in computer graphics, user interfaces, memory management, networked gaming, etc.; or
any transformation of an article to a different state or thing.
Further, the dependent claims merely refine the abstract game rules by setting relative award amounts or expected values for secondary games, specifying whether pots are perceived or actual persistent, or whether the third pot is displayed, all of which are variations in the game logic or information being displayed. Limiting the abstract idea to the particular game context, or to the specific sequences of triggers and activators and relative award levels, is a field-of-use limitation or result-oriented detail and does not meaningfully integrate the exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Step 2 – Significantly more / inventive concept?
Under Step 2B, the claims are evaluated to determine whether they include additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself.
As detailed above, the recited processor, memory device, and display device are generic computer components performing well-understood, routine, and conventional functions (e.g. executing stored instructions and displaying information). The steps of “causing a display” of symbol displays, pots, features, triggers, activators, indications, etc. and automatically activating pots/features when certain symbol combinations occur, merely implement the abstract game rules on a conventional computer and do not add an inventive concept.
The dependent claims further specify: (i) award sets and relative averages or expected averages for secondary games under different features (e.g. claims 3-5, 10-13, 18-19 – these are mathematical or economic relationships and variations in prize structure, which are themselves part of the abstract idea), and (ii) nature of the pots (perceived persistent vs actual persistent) and whether they are displayed (e.g. claims 2, 6-7, 9, 14-15, 17, & 20 – these are simply aspects of how the game state is represented or maintained and how much information is shown to the player, which again falls within presentation of information and game rules). None of these dependent claim limitations recite non-conventional or non-generic arrangement of known computer components. They provide no technical improvement to the underlying computer (gaming) system. Rather, they refine the abstract idea while using generic computing hardware as a tool. Viewed as a whole, the claim set does not add significantly more than the judicial exception.
For at least these reasons, claims 1-20 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner’s Remarks on Prior Art
While the claims are not yet in condition for allowance as detailed above, the Examiner positions that the prior art does not appear to explicitly disclose any reference, or references, which taken alone or in reasonable combination, that teach or otherwise reasonably make obvious the invention as explicitly recited in at least independent claims 1, 8, & 16 without hindsight reconstruction and/or piecemeal analysis of the prior art.
Conceptionally, the invention is directed to displaying gameplay that includes symbols presented in symbol displays and multiple pots associated with respective feature games, where different scenarios of symbols displayed cause different feature games to be activated, such as “a first trigger symbol combination” activates “a first feature game” associated with “a first pot” as opposed to “both the first trigger symbol combination and a second activator” actives “a third feature game” associated with a “third pot”. At high level, the triggering of different feature games based on different symbols or symbol combinations is known in the art. For example, Crispino et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0197379) explicitly illustrates at figures 7 to 8C that at least three different feature games can be triggered, such as a first feature game conducted when a first trigger occurs, a second feature game conducted when a second trigger occurs, and a composite or third feature game conducted when both the first and second triggers occur. Crispino however does not disclose activator symbols nor “pots” specifically displayed and associated with feature games. As for activator symbols in combination with triggering symbol combinations, Paotrukal (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0406126) discloses triggering conditions including at least three special symbols and one activator symbol to trigger a feature game, such that if either of the special symbols or activator symbols is less than the required amount, the feature game is not triggered (figure 4 and paragraph 0069). Paotrukal also does not disclose multiple feature games tied to different scenarios of trigger symbol combinations and/or activators, nor multiple “pots” associated with multiple feature games.
Accordingly, while certain aspects of the specificity as claimed in the pending claims was known at the time of Applicant’s invention, the additional aspects as set forth in the claims in combination with the multiple different scenarios of trigger symbol combination and/or activator symbols to activate different feature games associated with different pots would only have been obvious based on hindsight reconstruction and/or piecemeal analysis of the prior art to arrive at the specificity as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILAP SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-1723. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30-6PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KANG HU can be reached at 571-270-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/MILAP SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights