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
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
4. Step 1
Claims 1-16 are directed to a method meeting the requirements for Step 1.
5. Step 2A Prong 1
In independent Claim 1, the following italicized steps recite an abstract idea of the abstract mental processing to determined that a game condition has been met and wagering which is a mental process and a certain method of organizing human activity, respectively, and for the purposes of the 101 analysis combined into a single abstract idea of wagering which is a certain method of organizing human activity as shown below:
Claim 1
A method comprising:
{mental process}
determining, by a processor circuit, that a game play condition associated with a primary wagering game has been met;
{wagering}
receiving, at a gaming device, a wager comprising a primary wager amount for the primary wagering game comprising a first paytable;
based on the primary wager amount and the determination that that the game play condition has been met, executing, by the processor circuit, a secondary wagering game comprising a second paytable based on the primary wager amount;
based on a result of the secondary wagering game indicating a winning result, awarding a secondary game award based on the second paytable, wherein a maximum award of the second paytable does not exceed the primary wager amount;
executing, by the processor circuit, the primary wagering game; and
based on a result of the primary wagering game indicating a winning result, awarding a primary game award based on the first paytable.
The Court found similar implementations of claims directed towards the rules for playing a game in In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19 (Fed. Cir. 2016) concluding that the claimed “method of conducting a wagering game” was directed to an abstract idea” and In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1161, 129 USPQ2d 1008, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018). There, the patentee claimed a method of playing a dice game including placing wagers on whether certain die faces will appear face up. 911 F.3d at 1160; 129 USPQ2d at 1011. The Federal Circuit determined that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of "rules for playing games", which the court characterized as a certain method of organizing human activity. 911 F.3d at 1160-61; 129 USPQ2d at 1011.
Here, Claim 1 is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations according to mental processing to determined that a game condition has been met and wagering which is a mental process and a certain method of organizing human activity, respectively.
As explained in the MPEP 2106 in situations like this where a series of steps recite judicial exceptions, examiners should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single abstract idea for purposes of further eligibility. See MPEP 2106.04 and 2106.05(II). Thus, for purposes of further discussion, the abstract ideas are collectively viewed as a single abstract idea of wagering which is a certain form of organizing human activity.
6. 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, a processor circuit and gaming device 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 or gaming device 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)).
Applicant’s specification does not suggest that the processor circuit or gaming device are improved from a technical perspective, or that they would operate differently than they otherwise could but instead where:
“FIG. 2B is a block diagram that illustrates logical and functional relationships between various components of a gaming device 100. It should also be understood that components described in FIG. 2B may also be used in other computing devices, as desired, such as mobile computing devices for example. As shown in FIG. 2B, the gaming device 100 may include a processing circuit 12 that controls operations of the gaming device 100. Although illustrated as a single processing circuit, multiple special purpose and/or general-purpose processors and/or processor cores may be provided in the gaming device 100. For example, the gaming device 100 may include one or more of a video processor, a signal processor, a sound processor and/or a communication controller that performs one or more control functions within the gaming device 100. The processing circuit 12 may be variously referred to as a "controller," "microcontroller," "microprocessor" or simply a "computer." The processor may further include one or more application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs).” [0038]
Consequently, these elements 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 employe 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 lacks the eligibility requirements of Step 2 Prong II.
7. Step 2B
According to MPEP 2106, 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 as extra-solution activity but for the devices used as tools. Thus, Claim 1 does not recite additional elements, individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, Claim 1 is ineligible.
8. Dependent Claims
In Reference to Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20
Claims 2-8 recite additional abstract details for the determining step. Claims 9-16 recite additional abstract steps for the wagering game steps. Thus, none of Claims 2-16 provide a practical application to the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Claims 1-2, 9-10, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0102994 to Riggs in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2008/9214266 to Phillips.
In Reference to Claims 1, 9, 10, 13, and 15
Riggs discloses a system (Fig. 5), a display device (Fig. 5 video display device 104), an input device (Fig. 5 input devices [0046]), a processor circuit (Fig. 6 CPU 205 with Fig. RAM 206, Memory 207 with base game programming 202, executing program code [0007]), for a method comprising:
determine that a game play condition associated with a primary wagering game has been met (install and present allowed add-on options Fig. 1 308 associated with a base game [0021]);
display an indication of a wager of secondary game is in an active state (for each configuration option calculate a weighted average payout and display it [0022], input from the player responding to a set of bets to choose from [0033], for those not in an active state are not displayed as options {inactive state});
receive a wager comprising a wager amount for the primary wagering game comprising a first paytable (Fig. 3 player deposit 328 for a base game 334 and paytable options for desired configuration [0013, 0020], 0022] to start a base game at 340 [0035]);
based on the wager amount and the determination that that the game play condition has been met (the add-on bonus is triggered by any play of the base game which is initiated by wager [0037] Fig. 3 330), execute a secondary wagering game comprising a second paytable (add-on bonus game can be triggered on any given play [0021, 0022, 0031, 0032]);
based on a result of the secondary wagering game indicating a winning result, award a secondary game award based on the second paytable ([0038-0039]), wherein a maximum award is identified in the second paytable (Fig. 4 Add-on bonus games are part of a total return the player Fig. 4, [0022, 0024, 0025, 0032]);
execute the primary wagering game ([0036]); and
based on a result of the primary wagering game indicating a winning result, award a primary game award based on the first paytable ([0036]).
Riggs discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the reference does not limit the bonus award to a maximum award that does not exceed the primary wager amount. One of skill in the art would be aware of the free plays of Phillips.
Phillips teaches of wagering games where a player can select an additional number (Fig. 2 “Determine a Winning Number” 210, “Determine an Additional Winning Number” 220). According to Phillips, “[i]n an embodiment of the presently described technology, wagers on numbers 130 that are additional winning numbers 130 are treated as "mulligans." That is, if a player wagers on a number 130 that is an additional winning number 130, that player does not win any additional amount, but instead is given his/her wager back. In this way, the wager is treated similar to a "push" in blackjack. This embodiment therefore provides players with free plays (a non-loss of a wager and return of wager, for example) when their wagers are associated with non-winning numbers 130 but that are associated with an additional winning number 130.” [0034]. Examiner relies on Phillips’ teaching that the odds or payouts for payouts for additional winning numbers as referring to a pay table for the additional winning numbers ([0030, 0034]). Also, Examiner notes that Phillips teaches of an embodiment where wagering on the winning number alone is sufficient to receive an award for the additional winning number [0034] as well as requiring an additional wager being required to receive a payout for a winning additional number [0031]. One of skill in the art would take away that whether a separate wager is required or not, the payout or maximum award for the additional winning number limited to the amount of the wager placed for a player to get his wager back [0034]..
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 secondary game paytable and award of Riggs with the payout and award of Phillips allowing a player in a bonus game to receive at most his wager back to achieve the predictable result of providing players with free plays of their primary game yet increasing profits to the gaming establishment by limiting the maximum award to the player’s primary wager. 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 Claim 2
Riggs discloses making a max bet ([0021]) for desired configurations.
In Reference to Claim 14
Riggs discloses presenting a bonus feature from the base game ([0038]) and displays the conduct of the bonus game ([0039]) where bonus game media assets are displayed as well as the trigger in the base game ([0039, 0040]). Riggs also discloses animating game results ([0009]).
In Reference to Claim 16
Riggs discloses portions of wagers funds one or more secondary prize award pools ([0028, 0066, 0108]).
13. Claims 3-5, 7-8, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riggs, Phillips, further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2013/0252734 to Gilliland.
Riggs discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose wherein the determination that the game play condition associated with a primary wagering game has been met comprises a determination that a player of the primary wagering game has lost a predetermined amount within a predetermined previous amount of time; has lost a predetermined amount within a predetermined number of previous primary games; has lost a predetermined number of previous primary games; has a predetermined player status level; has wagered a predetermined amount within a predetermined previous amount of time, and has played a predetermined number of previous primary games.
Gilliland teaches of gaming machines wherein play is determined based on one or more designated events (Titl.) to establish specific criteria and conditions to be satisfied for play of a primary game ([0091]) over a designated period of time/day {range} ([0091] (cc)) and any suitable combination of conditions ([0091] (hh)) where a player has lost a predetermined amount (lost initial deposit (y) or credits (m); has lost a predetermined amount (y, m) within a predetermined number of previous primary games (m, j); has lost a predetermined number of previous primary games (r); and has wagered a predetermined amount (initial deposit lost (y), and has played a predetermined number of previous primary games (j). Gilliland provides this as part of his invention because players play at substantially different wagering amounts or levels and at substantially rates of play ([0004]) and most gaming content is static and predictable ([0006]).
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify the conditions of play of Riggs with the various conditions of Gilliland to increase the robustness of the games and conditions of game play to make games exciting for a wide range of players. The Courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is indicia of obviousness.
14. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riggs, Phillips, in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0287812 to Fieldman.
Riggs discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose a predetermined player status level.
Friedman teaches of establishing conditions of player game play based on player status level where “a multiple dimension expanding wild symbols game triggering event occurs based upon gaming system operator defined player eligibility parameters stored on a player tracking system (such as via a player tracking card or other suitable manner).” Specifically, where the gaming system determines the player tracking level of the player and defines minimum bet levels required for such events or conditions to occur based on the player's card level. ([0171]).
Here, one of skill in the art is aware of player tracking systems and game conditions tuned to player status to modify the game bonus systems of Riggs with the identification of player tracking level of Fieldman to achieve the predictable result of making the game more engaging based on the status of the player. The Courts have held that applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is indicia of obviousness.
Double Patenting
15. 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).
16. 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).
17. 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.
18. Claims 1-16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,183,154. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are merely the method form and the granted system claims as demonstrated below.
U.S. Pat. No. 12,183,154
Application 18/986,310
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:
determine that a game play condition associated with a primary wagering game has been met;
receive a wager comprising a wager amount for the primary wagering game comprising a first paytable;
based on the wager amount and the determination that that the game play condition has been met, execute a secondary wagering game comprising a second paytable;
based on a result of the secondary wagering game indicating a winning result, award a secondary game award based on the second paytable, wherein a maximum award of the second paytable does not exceed the wager amount;
execute the primary wagering game; and
based on a result of the primary wagering game indicating a winning result, award a primary game award based on the first paytable.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the determination that the game play condition associated with a primary wagering game has been met comprises a determination that the wager amount for the primary wagering game comprises a maximum wager amount for the primary wagering game.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the determination that the game play condition associated with a primary wagering game has been met comprises a determination that a player of the primary wagering game has lost a predetermined amount within a predetermined previous amount of time.
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the determination that the game play condition associated with a primary wagering game has been met comprises a determination that a player of the primary wagering game has lost a predetermined amount within a predetermined number of previous primary games.
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the determination that the game play condition associated with a primary wagering game has been met comprises a determination that a player of the primary wagering game has lost a predetermined number of previous primary games.
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the determination that the game play condition associated with a primary wagering game has been met comprises a determination that a player of the primary wagering game has a predetermined player status level.
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the determination that the game play condition associated with a primary wagering game has been met comprises a determination that a player of the primary wagering game has wagered a predetermined amount within a predetermined previous amount of time.
8. The system of claim 1, wherein the determination that the game play condition associated with a primary wagering game has been met comprises a determination that a player of the primary wagering game has played a predetermined number of previous primary games.
9. The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor circuit to:
determine whether the secondary wagering game is in an active state, wherein the execution of the secondary wagering game is further based on a determination that the secondary wagering game is in the active state.
10. The system of claim 9, wherein the instructions further cause the processor circuit to:
determine that an environmental condition has been met; based on a determination that the environmental condition has been met, cause the secondary wagering game to be in the active state; and
based on a determination that the environmental condition has not been met, cause the secondary wagering game to be in an inactive state.
11. The system of claim 10, wherein the environmental condition comprises a time range.
12. The system of claim 10, wherein the environmental condition comprises a day range.
13. The system of claim 9, wherein the instructions further cause the processor circuit to:
based on a determination that the secondary wagering game is in the active state, display an indication that the secondary wagering game is in an active state.
14. The system of claim 13, wherein the indication comprises an animated game element.
15. The system of claim 13, wherein execution of the secondary wagering game is further based on receipt of a player input from an input device associated with the secondary wagering game.
16. The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor circuit to:
based on receipt of the wager, allocate a predetermined portion of the wager amount to a secondary game award pool, wherein the secondary game award is paid from the secondary game award pool.
A method comprising:
determining, by a processor circuit,
that a game play condition associated with a primary wagering game has been met;
receiving, at a gaming device, a wager comprising a primary wager amount for the primary wagering game comprising a first paytable;
based on the primary wager amount and the determination that that the game play condition has been met, executing, by the processor circuit, a secondary wagering game comprising a second paytable based on the primary wager amount;
based on a result of the secondary wagering game indicating a winning result, awarding a secondary game award based on the second paytable, wherein a maximum award of the second paytable does not exceed the primary wager amount;
executing, by the processor circuit, the primary wagering game; and
based on a result of the primary wagering game indicating a winning result, awarding a primary game award based on the first paytable.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein determining that the game play condition associated with a primary wagering game has been met comprises determining that the primary wager amount for the primary wagering game comprises a maximum wager amount for the primary wagering game.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein determining that the game play condition associated with a primary wagering game has been met comprises determining that a player of the primary wagering game has lost a predetermined amount within a predetermined previous amount of time.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein determining that the game play condition associated with a primary wagering game has been met comprises determining that a player of the primary wagering game has lost a predetermined amount within a predetermined number of previous primary games.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein determining that the game play condition associated with a primary wagering game has been met comprises determining that a player of the primary wagering game has lost a predetermined number of previous primary games.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein determining that the game play condition associated with a primary wagering game has been met comprises determining that a player of the primary wagering game has a predetermined player status level.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein determining that the game play condition associated with a primary wagering game has been met comprises determining that a player of the primary wagering game has wagered a predetermined amount within a predetermined previous amount of time.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein determining that the game play condition associated with a primary wagering game has been met comprises determining that a player of the primary wagering game has played a predetermined number of previous primary games.
9. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining whether the secondary wagering game is in an active state, wherein executing the secondary wagering game is further based on a determination that the secondary wagering game is in the active state.
10. The method of claim 9, further comprising:
determining that an environmental condition has been met; based on a determination that the environmental condition has been met, causing the secondary wagering game to be in the active state; and
based on a determination that the environmental condition has not been met, causing the secondary wagering game to be in an inactive state.
11. The method of claim 10, wherein the environmental condition comprises a time range.
12. The method of claim 10, wherein the environmental condition comprises a day range.
13. The method of claim 9, further comprising:
based on a determination that the secondary wagering game is in the active state, displaying an indication that the secondary wagering game is in an active state.
14. The method of claim 13, wherein the indication comprises an animated game element.
15. The method of claim 13, wherein executing the secondary wagering game is further based on receipt of a player input from an input device associated with the secondary wagering game.
16. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
based on receiving the wager, allocating a predetermined portion of the primary wager amount to a secondary game award pool, wherein the secondary game award is paid from the secondary game award pool.
Conclusion
19. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is in the Notice of References Cited.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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