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 1-20 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 1-20 are directed to an apparatus or method meeting the requirements for Step 1.
5. Step 2A Prong 1
In independent Claim 1 (and similarly for Claims 9 and 17), but for the memory, process and display, the claimed steps recite abstract rules for playing a game which is a certain method of organizing human activity.
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 of the rules for playing a game. Also, 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, each claim, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations according to the rules for playing a game which is a certain method 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, memory, plurality of instructions, 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, here, 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, “[t]he games available for play on the gaming device 200 are controlled by a game controller 202 that includes one or more processors 204. Processor 204 represents a general-purpose processor, a specialized processor intended to perform certain functional tasks, or a combination thereof.” [0045]. “Examples of memory 208 include random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), hard disk drives, solid-state drives, USB flash drives, memory cards accessed via a memory card reader, floppy disks accessed via an associated floppy disk drive, optical discs accessed via an optical disc drive, magnetic tapes accessed via an appropriate tape drive, and/or other memory components, or a combination of any two or more of these memory components. In addition, examples of RAM include static random access memory (SRAM), dynamic random access memory (DRAM), magnetic random access memory (MRAM), and other such devices.” [0046]. “In many configurations, the gaming machine 104A may have a main display 128 (e.g., video display monitor) mounted to, or above, the gaming display area 118. The main display 128 can be a high-resolution LCD, plasma, LED, or OLED panel which may be flat or curved as shown, a cathode ray tube, or other conventional electronically controlled video monitor.” [0031]. Also noted, “[t]he gaming devices 104A-104X may alternatively be portable and/or remote gaming devices such as, but not limited to, a smart phone, a tablet, a laptop, or a game console, although such devices may require specialized software and/or hardware to comply with regulatory requirements regarding devices used for wagering or games of chance in which monetary awards are provided.” [0025]
Consequently, these devices and instructions 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. 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 9 and 17, lack the eligibility requirements of Step 2 Prong II.
7. Step 2B
According to the 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 extra-solution elements evaluated under Step 2A which are subject to review under this step. Thus, Claim 1, and similarly Claims 9 and 17, do not recite additional elements, individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, Claims 1, 9 and 17 are ineligible.
8. Dependent Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20
Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 recite more abstract rules. 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.
Double Patenting
9. 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).
10. 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).
11. 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.
12. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12.,217,575. The instant claims are anticipated by the granted species claims where the differences are bolded.
U.S. Pat. No. 12,217,575
U.S. Pat. App. No. 19/010,887
1.An electronic gaming device comprising:
at least one memory with instructions stored thereon; and
at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
cause display of a plurality of symbol positions for an electronic game, the plurality of symbol positions comprising a grouped symbol position of a grouped height in a first display area and a plurality of individual symbol positions of an individual height in a second display area, wherein the grouped height is greater than the individual height;
cause display of a grouped symbol in the first display area;
based at least in part on the grouped symbol, cause display of the second display area to expand to an expanded second display area to include at least one additional individual symbol position comprising at least one additional individual symbol within the expanded second display area, wherein the at least one additional individual symbol is associated with the grouped symbol in the at least one memory;
cause display of a plurality of individual symbols at the plurality of individual symbol positions; and
cause display of an outcome for the electronic game based at least in part on the grouped symbol, the at least one additional individual symbol, and the plurality of individual symbols.
The electronic gaming device of claim 1, wherein the grouped symbol position comprises a grouping of symbol positions, and wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to:
query a lookup table stored in the at least one memory to determine one or more symbols to be displayed at the grouping of symbols positions, wherein at least one entry in the lookup table comprises a plurality of partial symbols, and wherein adjacent display of the plurality of partial symbols comprises display of the grouped symbol;
determine to cause display of the plurality of partial symbols based on the query; and cause display of the grouped symbol in the first display area by causing display of the plurality of partial symbols in the first display area.
The electronic gaming device of claim 2, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to query the lookup table based on an output from a random number generator (RNG).
4. The electronic gaming device of claim 1, wherein the at least one additional individual symbol comprises a multiplier symbol.
5. The electronic gaming device of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to identify the at least one additional individual symbol based at least in part on an output from a random number generator (RNG).
6. The electronic gaming device of claim 1, wherein the at least one additional individual symbol is predefined, in the at least one memory, for display when the grouped symbol is displayed.
7. The electronic gaming device of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: determine a first portion of the outcome that is associated at least with the plurality of individual symbols; and
determine a second portion of the outcome that is associated with a quantity bonus symbols displayed, wherein at least one of the at least one additional individual symbol or at least one of the plurality of individual symbols comprises at least one bonus symbol.
8. The electronic gaming device of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to cause display of the outcome based at least in part on at least one message received by the at least one processor from a gaming server.
Claims 9-16 are the similarly worded as above.
Claims 17-20 are similarly worded as above.
1.An electronic gaming device comprising:
at least one memory with instructions stored thereon; and
at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to
cause display of a plurality of symbol positions for an electronic game, the plurality of symbol positions comprising a grouped symbol position of a grouped height in a first display area and a plurality of individual symbol positions of an individual height in a second display area;
cause display of a grouped symbol in the first display area;
based at least in part on the grouped symbol, cause display of the second display area to expand to an expanded second display area to include at least one additional individual symbol position comprising at least one additional individual symbol within the expanded second display area, wherein the at least one additional individual symbol is associated with the grouped symbol in the at least one memory;
cause display of a plurality of individual symbols at the plurality of individual symbol positions; and
cause display of an outcome for the electronic game based at least in part on the plurality of individual symbols.
2.The electronic gaming device of claim 1, wherein the grouped symbol position comprises a grouping of symbol positions, and wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to:
query a lookup table stored in the at least one memory to determine one or more symbols to be displayed at the grouping of symbols positions, wherein at least one entry in the lookup table comprises a plurality of partial symbols, and wherein adjacent display of the plurality of partial symbols comprises display of the grouped symbol;
determine to cause display of the plurality of partial symbols based on the query; and cause display of the grouped symbol in the first display area by causing display of the plurality of partial symbols in the first display area.
The electronic gaming device of claim 2, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to query the lookup table based on an output from a random number generator (RNG).
4. The electronic gaming device of claim 1, wherein the at least one additional individual symbol comprises a multiplier symbol.
5. The electronic gaming device of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to identify the at least one additional individual symbol based at least in part on an output from a random number generator (RNG).
\6. The electronic gaming device of claim 1, wherein the at least one additional individual symbol is predefined, in the at least one memory, for display when the grouped symbol is displayed.
7. The electronic gaming device of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: determine a first portion of the outcome that is associated at least with the plurality of individual symbols; and
determine a second portion of the outcome that is associated with a quantity bonus symbols displayed, wherein at least one of the at least one additional individual symbol or at least one of the plurality of individual symbols comprises at least one bonus symbol.
8. The electronic gaming device of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to cause display of the outcome based at least in part on at least one message received by the at least one processor from a gaming server.
Claims 9-16 are similarly worded as above.
Claims 17-20 are similarly worded as above.
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is in the Notice of References Cited.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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