Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Eligibility - 35 USC § 101
Examiner does not find an abstract mental process of certain means of organizing human activity in the recited claims. The claims do not express a mathematical concept; cannot be carried out in the human mind as a mental process; and do not recite the steps of a game for a human to follow or express a form of wagering or financial activity as certain forms of organizing human activity.
Examiner does not find that the instant claims are anticipated by any of the prior-granted or co-pending distinct (non-species) claims based on 12/619,499, 14/218,449, 15/090,824, 15/471,767, 15/896,493, 16/216,482, 16/898,784, and 18/339,724 for purposes of double patenting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
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. 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.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 6,270,411 to Gura in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2006/0068903 to Walker.
In Reference to Claims 1, 8, and 15
Gura discloses an apparatus and computer-readable memory, comprising:
0ne or more processors (Fig. 2 CPU 20);
memory storing executable instructions (Fig. 2 memory 24, Col. 4, Ll. 26-28); and the method comprising:
determining a losing game result of a game on an electronic gaming machine (Fig. 1 gaming machine 10 executing game of Figs. 8-11 wherein in Fig. 9, the BRUISER, LADY, and WIMPY GUY symbols “do not provide a payoff in the basic game” Col. 10, LL. 63-64);
based on determining the losing game result, determining one or more game result animations (Fig. 9, “WIMPY GUY” symbols trigger a BOWLING ROLL mode Col. 10, LL. 56-65 where the mode presents 10 bowling frames {animations} (Fig. 10, see also Col. 12, LL. 29-32);
receiving, via an interface of the electronic gaming machine, a selection of a game result animation option (Examiner assumes this claim is exemplified by Applicant’s Figs. 6A-6C as this is the only embodiment Examiner has found that demonstrates the selection of animation options i.e., the player chooses where pirate 124 is to dig. Based on this understanding, Gura, Fig. 10, presents for a bowling frame, Col. 11, LL. 4-6, CPU 20, a window (not shown) illustrating a bowling lane with three arrows. The arrows are the claimed options selectable by the player where three arrows indicate a “left, middle, and right side of the lane”, respectively (Col. 11, LL. 9-11, Fig. 1). Said another way, the three arrows would be the same as if Applicant had only three lands 130 of Fig. 6C. Gura discloses “[t]he player chooses an arrow by pressing the touch screen or an appropriate button (not shown) to indicate how the bowler should approach the bowling lane before releasing the bowling ball.“ Col. 11, LL. 11-14, Fig. 1 video display 12 {interface}), wherein the game result animation option is configured to cause output of a version of the one or more game result animations (Figs. 10 and 11 “[t]he CPU 20 then illustrates the character that triggered the BOWLING ROLL mode, for this example the “WIMPY GUY,” as the bowler making the chosen approach to roll the bowling ball at a set of bowling pins. The CPU20 then animates a close up of the pins and the bowling ball rolling toward the pins as illustrated in Figs. 10 and 11. As depicted in Fig. 10, the BOWLING ROLL mode animates the motion of the bowling ball and the pins at the center position of reel 134 within a box 166 before illustrating the ball knocking down preselected pins in Fig. 11.” Col. 11, LL. 14-25); and
outputting, based on the selection of the game result animation option, the one or more game result animations (the roll outcome animation results in pins being knocked over and a score entered in the frame Col. 11, LL. 25-67 and Col. 12 LL. 1-30 where the basic game resumes).
Gura is silent as to the time is takes for each arrow and resulting bowl roll animation is truncated (i.e., shortened time-wise). One of skill in the art would be aware of the duration modifications of Walker to speed up gameplay/minimal time delays between plays. Walker provides his invention where “[t]he enjoyment of the play, as well as the ability to maximize the chance of hitting a large jackpot, is increased by more play. Play can be increased both by playing longer, and by playing faster. As will be appreciated from a consideration of the process described below, the present invention permits both increased duration, by providing for play at discounted prices, and speed of play, by providing for minimal time delays between plays.” [0268].
Walker teaches of accelerating play of a gaming session (Titl.). According to Walker, “by decreasing or eliminating the duration of presentation of results, some embodiments of the present invention provide the advantage that a player does not need to press an input device twice to expedite presentation of a result.” [0348]. Specifically, “[i]n another embodiment, expediting play may comprise changing the period of time it takes for an outcome to resolve after a request (e.g., from a player) or instruction (e.g., automatically provided by software of a gaming device or server) to generate the outcome. For example, the period of the animation of a spin in a video slot machine game may be changed from three seconds to one second or two seconds.” [0348].
The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; and
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify the arrows and BOWL ROLL mode animations with the shortened animation time periods of Walker resulting in the predictable result of increasing the speed of play by providing for minimal time delays between plays. The Courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
In Reference to Claims 2, 9, and 16
Gura discloses an electronic gaming machine comprises at least one of a mechanical
spinning reel machine or a virtual spinning reel machine (reel animation, mechanical, rather than video displays Col. 3, LL. 30-31 and 45-46).
In Reference to Claims 3, 10, and 17
Walker teaches that each arrow selected and subsequent bowling animation can be shortened “from three seconds to one second or two seconds.” [0348].
In Reference to Claims 4, 11, and 18
This claim does not appear to further narrow the scope of the claim from which it depends as the options are already output in the independent claims from which they depend. That aside, Gura discloses outputting, via a user interface of a touchscreen display, the truncated game result animation option Col. 11, LL. 9-11, Fig. 1.
In Reference to Claims 5, 12, and 19
Walker teaches of pricing contract based on an identified player and player account ([0070, 0066], identification [0216], and player history [0204]) whether the terms and features of the accelerated play are applied to impose the duration changes on the game elements and to modify the arrows and animations of Gura.
In Reference to Claims 6 and 13
Walker teaches of pricing contract based on an identified player and player account ([0070, 0066], identification [0216], and player history [0204]) whether the terms and features of the accelerated play are applied to impose the duration changes on the game elements and to modify the arrows and animations of Gura. The timing parameter being a price parameter defined by the player (Fig. 26, parameter setting as to decreasing the selected length of the animation used [0355]).
In Reference to Claims 7, 14, and 20
Walker teaches of pricing contract based on an identified player account [0066], identification [0216], and player history [0204] whether the terms and features of the accelerated play are applied to impose the duration changes on the game elements and to modify the arrows and animations of Gura. The preferred rate of play is determined by the player (Fig. 26, preferred rate of play parameter setting as to the total plays and the amount of time. [0355], see also minimum and maximum rate of play parameters [0095, 0096, 0142] and to select a rate of play [0163]).
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is in the Notice of References Cited.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached on (571) 270-1344. 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
Prosecution Insights