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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application 19/046,186 originally filed on February 5, 2025. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 11, and 18 are independent.
Priority
This application claims priority of US Provisional Application 63/551,815, filed February 9, 2024.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: typographical errors.
In claim 3, and substantially similar limitations in claim 19, recites the limitation “based out the first outcome.” The Examiner reasonably believes this is a typographical error and should be corrected to “based [[out]] on the first outcome.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to “a gaming system” (i.e. a machine), claim 11 is directed to “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” (i.e. a machine), and claim 18 is directed to “a server” (i.e. a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “providing a progressive jackpot in a bingo game,” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Claims that require a computer may also recite a mental process, as described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
“initiate gameplay of a bingo game having a progressive jackpot;
cause a first outcome of the bingo game to be evaluated according to a first progressive jackpot trigger condition for a first stage of the progressive jackpot;
increment the progressive jackpot value;
update, based on the value of the progressive jackpot after being incremented, the progressive jackpot to a second stage; and
cause a second outcome of the bingo game to be evaluated according to a second progressive jackpot trigger condition for the second stage of the progressive jackpot.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “a gaming system,” “a processor,” “a memory,” “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium,” and “a server” are claimed, as these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering) and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “providing a progressive jackpot in a bingo game” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a gaming system,” “a processor,” “a memory,” “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium,” and “a server” are claimed these are all generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements, Applicant’s specification discloses them in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a), which satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “a gaming system,” “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium,” and “a server” is not specially defined in the specification as anything other than generic computing equipment.
The Applicant’s claimed “a processor” is defined in instant specification paragraph [0045], “Processor 204 represents a general-purpose processor, a specialized processor intended to perform certain functional tasks, or a combination thereof As an example, processor 204 can be a central processing unit (CPU) that has one or more multi-core processing units and memory mediums (e.g., cache memory) that function as buffers and/or temporary storage for data. Alternatively, processor 204 can be a specialized processor, such as an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), graphics processing unit (GPU), field-programmable gate array (FPGA), digital signal processor (DSP), or another type of hardware accelerator. In another example, processor 204 is a system on chip (SoC) that combines and integrates one or more general-purpose processors and/or one or more specialized processors. Although FIG. 2A illustrates that game controller 202 includes a single processor 204, game controller 202 is not limited to this representation and instead can include multiple processors 204 (e.g., two or more processors).”
Applicant’s claimed “a memory” is defined in paragraph [0046] as “including volatile and nonvolatile memory and other types of non-transitory data storage components. Volatile memory is memory that do not retain data values upon loss of power. Nonvolatile memory is memory that do retain data upon a loss of power. Examples of memory 208 include random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), hard disk drives, solid-state drives, universal serial bus (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. Examples of ROM include a programmable read-only memory (PROM), an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM), an electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), or other like memory device. Even though FIG. 2A illustrates that game controller 202 includes a single memory 208, game controller 202 could include multiple memories 208 for storing program instructions and/or data.”
These elements are reasonably interpreted as being generic computers or generic computing equipment, which provide no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the claimed limitations are reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-10, 12-17, 19, and 20 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-10, 12-17, 19, and 20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to independent claims 1, 9, and 14.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 13, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cuddy et al. (hereinafter “Cuddy,” US 2019/0156630).
Regarding claim 1, and substantially similar limitations in claims 11 and 18, Cuddy discloses a gaming system comprising:
a processor (Cuddy [0036], “one or more electronic gaming machine(s) (“EGMs”) comprising at least (i) one or more processor(s)”); and
a memory storing instructions (Cuddy [0036], “one or more electronic gaming machine(s) (“EGMs”) comprising at least… one or more memories comprising at least one of any of random access, static, flash, permanent, erasable, programmable, read-only, or other memory”) thereon wherein the instructions when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
initiate gameplay of a bingo game having a progressive jackpot (Cuddy [0071], “When the revenue and jackpots are both attributable to a single entity in this manner, the game characteristics, associated base game award(s), and any progressive bonus game award(s) may be determined from a single outcome selected by a pseudo random number generator (PRNG) for a Class III game or from a single outcome provided by a central outcome server to a Class II machine, such as in a bingo-based game.”);
cause a first outcome of the bingo game to be evaluated according to a first progressive jackpot trigger condition for a first stage of the progressive jackpot (see Cuddy Fig. 4 and [0015], “FIG. 4 depicts the primary game EGM presentation to a player displaying a first stage of progressive award evaluation of the first game play outcome and a potential progressive award symbol at a first level”; also Cuddy [0059], “the outcome of this particular instance of a MPRVA game resulted in only the first level of progressive awards (“MINI”) being assigned”);
increment the progressive jackpot value (Cuddy [0064], “the progressive award value for each level varies is established and is incremented at least in part with respect to the probability of receiving such awards and the MPRVA paytable designated by the game designer… portions of players' wagers are contributed to each of the progressive jackpots to increment the various jackpot award values.”);
update, based on the value of the progressive jackpot after being incremented, the progressive jackpot to a second stage (see Cuddy Fig. 16, showing second stage “minor” jackpot value, and [0025], “FIG. 16 depicts the secondary EGM presentation showing incremented values of the various progressive jackpots available to be won”); and
cause a second outcome of the bingo game to be evaluated according to a second progressive jackpot trigger condition for the second stage of the progressive jackpot (see Cuddy Fig. 13 and [0059], “FIG. 13 depicts the frame associated with a second level “MINOR” designation frame moving across the reel 5 symbol in row 2 during a spin of the frame overlay pseudo-reel.”).
Regarding claim 4, and substantially similar limitations in claim 13, Cuddy discloses wherein evaluating the first outcome according to the first progressive jackpot trigger condition includes comparing the first outcome to a first paytable of winning bingo game patterns, and wherein evaluating the second outcome according to the second progressive jackpot trigger condition includes comparing the second outcome to a second paytable of winning bingo game patterns different from the first paytable of winning bingo game patterns (see Cuddy Fig. 2 and [0040], describing four levels of progressive jackpots; also Cuddy [0078], “What may be changed, if desired, is the probability of particular bonus game outcomes being selected and utilized for progressive jackpot awards.”; also Cuddy claim 19, “first and second paytables are utilized in part to calculate said progressive bonus jackpot award(s) for each of said one or more triggering outcome(s) or payline(s).”).
Regarding claim 10, and substantially similar limitations in claim 17, Cuddy discloses wherein evaluating the first outcome according to the first progressive jackpot trigger condition includes comparing the first outcome to a first paytable of winning bingo game patterns, and wherein evaluating the second outcome according to the second progressive jackpot trigger condition includes comparing the second outcome to a game ending win bingo game pattern, the game ending win bingo game pattern being predetermined such that the second progressive jackpot trigger condition is automatically satisfied by any potential bingo game outcome (see Cuddy Fig. 2 and [0040], “four progressive bonus jackpot awards are available at each of the “MINI” level ($10.00), the “MINOR” level ($30.00), the “MAJOR” level ($750.00), and the “GRAND” level ($10,000.00),” showing multiple progressive jackpots; see also Cuddy Fig. 15 and [0059], “FIG. 15 shows the fourth and highest value (“GRAND”) frame overlay moving between the second and third rows as the pseudo-reel continues to spin,” wherein the frame overlay is a facade).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cuddy in view of Hennessy (US 2022/0062745).
Regarding claim 2, Cuddy does not explicitly teach wherein the memory stores a plurality of facades for use in identifying a reel game outcome based on the bingo game outcome, the plurality of facades including a first facade associated with the first stage of the progressive jackpot and a second facade associated with the second stage of the progressive jackpot.
However, Hennessy discloses wherein the memory stores a plurality of facades for use in identifying a reel game outcome based on the bingo game outcome, the plurality of facades including a first facade associated with the first stage of the progressive jackpot and a second facade associated with the second stage of the progressive jackpot (Hennessy [0020-0021], “A bingo slot game may be comprised of a number of facades for each of a number of game outcome credit values, e.g., fifteen different ways (facades) to present a ten credit award game outcome, ten different ways to present a one thousand credit award game outcome, etc. and the larger award facades can get quite lengthy, e.g., to present the award as a set of free spin reel stops, a multi-step feature game, etc. As such the memory requirement to store all these facades as strings of RNG outcomes can become substantial… if an RNG seed is known to generate a specific sequence of RNG outcomes, e.g., corresponding to a specific bingo game facade, that seed can be used to store that facade. When that facade is selected by the game to present a game outcome, the pseudo RNG is seeded with the RNG seed corresponding to that facade and, as such, the pseudo RNG generates the desired sequence of RNG outcomes corresponding to the sequence of reel stops comprising the facade.”).
Hennessy is analogous to Cuddy, as both are drawn to the art of electronic gaming. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Cuddy, to include wherein the memory stores a plurality of facades for use in identifying a reel game outcome based on the bingo game outcome, the plurality of facades including a first facade associated with the first stage of the progressive jackpot and a second facade associated with the second stage of the progressive jackpot, as taught by Hennessy, since Hennessy’s use of stored facades is a known technique that can be applied to other electronic gaming systems to improve them in the same way. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, and substantially similar limitations in claims 12 and 19, Cuddy does not explicitly teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to: determine a first reel game outcome based out the first outcome of the bingo game and the first facade; retrieve, in response to updating the progressive jackpot to the second stage, the second facade; and determine a second reel game outcome based on the second outcome of the bingo game and the second facade.
However, Hennessy discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to: determine a first reel game outcome based out the first outcome of the bingo game and the first facade; retrieve, in response to updating the progressive jackpot to the second stage, the second facade; and determine a second reel game outcome based on the second outcome of the bingo game and the second facade (Hennessy [0019-0021], “In a bingo slot game each of the game outcome facades or presentations are comprised of a sequence of one or more RNG outcomes, each RNG outcome corresponding to a reel stop position. When a facade is selected by the game to present a game outcome the sequence of RNG outcomes are visually presented to the player as a reel spin sequence comprised of the corresponding one or more reel stop positions… A bingo slot game may be comprised of a number of facades for each of a number of game outcome credit values, e.g., fifteen different ways (facades) to present a ten credit award game outcome, ten different ways to present a one thousand credit award game outcome, etc. and the larger award facades can get quite lengthy, e.g., to present the award as a set of free spin reel stops, a multi-step feature game, etc. As such the memory requirement to store all these facades as strings of RNG outcomes can become substantial… if an RNG seed is known to generate a specific sequence of RNG outcomes, e.g., corresponding to a specific bingo game facade, that seed can be used to store that facade. When that facade is selected by the game to present a game outcome, the pseudo RNG is seeded with the RNG seed corresponding to that facade and, as such, the pseudo RNG generates the desired sequence of RNG outcomes corresponding to the sequence of reel stops comprising the facade.”).
Hennessy is analogous to Cuddy, as both are drawn to the art of electronic gaming. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Cuddy, to include wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to: determine a first reel game outcome based out the first outcome of the bingo game and the first facade; retrieve, in response to updating the progressive jackpot to the second stage, the second facade; and determine a second reel game outcome based on the second outcome of the bingo game and the second facade, as taught by Hennessy, since Hennessy’s use of stored facades is a known technique that can be applied to other electronic gaming systems to improve them in the same way. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 5-8, 14, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cuddy in view of Ideus, II et al. (hereinafter “Ideus,” US 2020/0250931).
Regarding claim 5, and substantially similar limitations in claim 20, Cuddy does not explicitly teach wherein the second paytable of winning bingo game patterns are associated with an increased probability of the jackpot trigger condition being satisfied, relative to the first paytable of winning bingo game patterns.
However, Ideus discloses wherein the second paytable of winning bingo game patterns are associated with an increased probability of the jackpot trigger condition being satisfied, relative to the first paytable of winning bingo game patterns (Ideus [0022], “A plurality of dynamically selectable paytables is also provided for evaluating the jackpot bingo card. For example, in embodiments wherein the persistent bonus game jackpot corresponds to a must-hit-by progressive jackpot, each paytable may correspond to a range of jackpot values, and an accumulated or current value of the jackpot may govern which paytable is selected for evaluating the jackpot bingo card. Further, as the value of the progressive jackpot approaches the must-hit-by value, paytables having improved or greater probabilities of awarding the jackpot may be selected, such that the progressive jackpot is guaranteed to hit, at least, when the accumulated value of the jackpot reaches the must-hit-by value.”).
Ideus is analogous to Cuddy, as both are drawn to the art of electronic gaming. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Cuddy, to include wherein the second paytable of winning bingo game patterns are associated with an increased probability of the jackpot trigger condition being satisfied, relative to the first paytable of winning bingo game patterns, as taught by Ideus, since it applies known techniques of adjusting probabilities and paytables in the electronic gaming system ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6, and substantially similar limitations in claim 14, Cuddy does not explicitly teach wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: compare the value of the progressive jackpot to at least one stored range of a plurality of stored ranges, each range of the plurality of stored ranges being associated with a corresponding stage of the progressive jackpot, wherein the progressive jackpot is updated to the second stage based on the comparison.
However, Ideus discloses wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: compare the value of the progressive jackpot to at least one stored range of a plurality of stored ranges, each range of the plurality of stored ranges being associated with a corresponding stage of the progressive jackpot, wherein the progressive jackpot is updated to the second stage based on the comparison (see Ideus Fig. 5 and [0077], “FIG. 5 is a line graph representation 500 of an example progressive jackpot 502 divided into a plurality of value ranges (or simply ranges, for brevity), where each range is associated with a respective paytable”).
Ideus is analogous to Cuddy, as both are drawn to the art of electronic gaming. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Cuddy, to include wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: compare the value of the progressive jackpot to at least one stored range of a plurality of stored ranges, each range of the plurality of stored ranges being associated with a corresponding stage of the progressive jackpot, wherein the progressive jackpot is updated to the second stage based on the comparison, as taught by Ideus, since it applies known techniques of adjusting probabilities and paytables in the electronic gaming system ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7, and substantially similar limitations in claim 15, Cuddy discloses wherein a first stored range of the plurality of ranges is a percentage range of a maximum value of the progressive jackpot.
However, Ideus discloses wherein a first stored range of the plurality of ranges is a percentage range of a maximum value of the progressive jackpot (see Ideus Fig. 5, showing percentages of ranges).
Ideus is analogous to Cuddy, as both are drawn to the art of electronic gaming. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Cuddy, to include wherein a first stored range of the plurality of ranges is a percentage range of a maximum value of the progressive jackpot, as taught by Ideus, since it applies known techniques of adjusting probabilities and paytables in the electronic gaming system ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, Cuddy discloses wherein the processor is provided on a progressive server in communication with a plurality of gaining devices, wherein updating the progressive jackpot to the second stage includes transmitting a signal to each of the plurality of gaming devices, the signal causing each of the gaming devices to change at least one of a set of paytables of winning bingo game patterns and a set of facades for use in evaluating bingo game outcomes.
However, Ideus discloses wherein the processor is provided on a progressive server in communication with a plurality of gaining devices, wherein updating the progressive jackpot to the second stage includes transmitting a signal to each of the plurality of gaming devices, the signal causing each of the gaming devices to change at least one of a set of paytables of winning bingo game patterns and a set of facades for use in evaluating bingo game outcomes (Ideus [0023], “Shown is a system 100 in a gaming environment including one or more server computers 102 (e.g., slot servers of a casino) that are in communication, via a communications network, with one or more gaming devices 104A-104X (EGMs, slots, video poker, bingo machines, etc.)”; also Ideus [0091], “System 100 (e.g., progressive system server 112) provides or maintains a progressive jackpot 502 (step 702). As described above, jackpot 502 may represent one jackpot of a multi-tier plurality of progressive jackpots, or jackpot 502 may comprise a single, stand-alone, progressive jackpot. In either case, jackpot 502 is organized in a plurality of ranges, such as ranges 504-510, which increase from a lowest range 504 to a highest range 510. Likewise, system 100 (e.g., central determination gaming system server 106 or progressive system server 112) provides or maintains a plurality of paytables 512-518 in conjunction with each range 514-510 of jackpot 502 (step 704).”).
Ideus is analogous to Cuddy, as both are drawn to the art of electronic gaming. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Cuddy, to include wherein the processor is provided on a progressive server in communication with a plurality of gaining devices, wherein updating the progressive jackpot to the second stage includes transmitting a signal to each of the plurality of gaming devices, the signal causing each of the gaming devices to change at least one of a set of paytables of winning bingo game patterns and a set of facades for use in evaluating bingo game outcomes, as taught by Ideus, since it applies known techniques of adjusting probabilities and paytables in the electronic gaming system ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cuddy in view of Casey et al. (hereinafter “Casey,” US 2021/0012616).
Regarding claim 9, and substantially similar limitations in claim 16, Cuddy does not explicitly teach wherein the second progressive jackpot trigger condition is a game ending win trigger condition.
However, Casey discloses wherein the second progressive jackpot trigger condition is a game ending win trigger condition (Casey [0069], “the electronic gaming system may not pull a random number in response to each and every player wager. As a result, in various embodiments, the electronic gaming system may determine a jackpot eligibility probability in response to each player wager or, in other cases, only in response to a trigger condition occurring (e.g., a game ending win).”).
Casey is analogous to Cuddy, as both are drawn to the art of electronic gaming. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Cuddy, to include wherein the second progressive jackpot trigger condition is a game ending win trigger condition, as taught by Casey, since it combines prior art elements of game ending trigger conditions to known electronic gaming methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen Alvesteffer whose telephone number is (571)272-8680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-6:00.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/STEPHEN ALVESTEFFER/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights