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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and stand rejected.
Claim Interpretation
The terms below are given the following interpretation:
cash on reel (COR) symbol: a symbol having a credit value indicated thereon (see: Specification: 0024, Fig. 5D).
Inactive: a state for a position in the matrix for which random number generations or table lookup is used for determining a stopping position. This is performed such that no such determination over the course of the bonus feature, fewer matrix positions are generally active with each spin until all matrix positions are inactive and the bonus feature ends. See Specification: 0026.
Metamorphic feature: an additional feature to a base game, the feature having its own state that may be activated (see: Specification: 0030, 0099, 0102, 0104-0105).
Metamorphic feature position: a position configured to display a corresponding metamorphic feature symbol that causes a random determination to activate a metamorphic feature associated with a metamorphic feature symbol when the metamorphic symbol is present in the metamorphic position (See: Specification: 0027, 0092, 0100, Fig. 5 (504)).
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 (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-20, under Step 2A claims 1-20 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites
in response to a bonus feature being triggered, generate a game interface including the plurality of matrix positions;
in response to the bonus feature being triggered, record each of the matrix positions as being in an active state;
for each matrix position recorded as being in the active state, perform a first random determination;
cause a cash on reel (COR) symbol to be displayed in at least one of the matrix positions based on the first random determination; and
record each matrix position in which a COR symbol is not displayed following the first random determination as being in an inactive state.
These limitations recite ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’, such as by reciting Fundamental Economic Principals or Practices or Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). This is because claim 1 sets forth or describes conducting a wagering game, which is a fundamental economic principal or practice (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A)). This also represents “rules for playing games”, which is managing personal behavior or interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C)).
Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 1 recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 does recite additional elements, including an electronic gaming system, at least one memory with instructions stored thereon, the at least one memory further configured to record a state of a plurality of matrix positions, at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory, wherein the instructions, and generating a game interface.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claim 1, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claim 1 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
electronic recordkeeping, or, storing or retrieving information from memory (e.g., recording matrix positions),
presenting offers (e.g., cause a cash on reel (COR) symbol to be displayed).
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding dependent claims 2-11, dependent claims 2-11 recite more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself, and at least inherit the abstract idea of claim 1. As such, claims 2-11 are understood to recite an abstract idea under step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-11 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. Claims 2-11 rely upon at least similar additional elements as discussed above regarding claim 1. The Examiner acknowledges the addition of specific game features such as a metamorphic feature; however, these features further refine the abstract idea (i.e., the rules for the wagering gameplay). Furthermore, causing display of or change in appearance to one or more metamorphic features merely represents the presentation of the wagering game data through the generic interface. This does not result in an improvement to the interface itself, or the gaming device. Instead, this represents little more than “apply it” – i.e., mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-11 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims *** do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 12-19 (method) and claim 20 (CRM), claims 12-20 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 1-11 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 12-20 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 11-13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pariseau (US 2022/0068081) in view of Rogers (US 2004/0072612).
Regarding claim 1, Pariseau teaches an electronic gaming system comprising:
at least one memory with instructions stored thereon, the at least one memory further configured to record a state of a plurality of matrix positions (see: Fig. 2, 0031-0032); and
at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory (see: Fig. 2, 0031-0032), wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
in response to a bonus feature being triggered, generate a game interface including the plurality of matrix positions (see: 0052, 0104, 0106-0107, Fig. 14 (420), Fig. 18)
in response to the bonus feature being triggered, record each of the matrix positions as being in an active state (see: 0048, 0106-0107, Fig. 18-20);
for each matrix position recorded as being in the active state, perform a first random determination (see: 0045, 0047, 0057-0058);
cause a cash on reel (COR) symbol to be displayed in at least one of the matrix positions based on the first random determination (see: 0048 (credit prize symbols 116 displaying credit values), 0108 (credit prize symbol), 0109, Fig. 5 (506), Fig. 20 (116), Fig. 24 (116)); and
Pariseau, however, does not teach that the system configured to record each matrix position in which a COR symbol is not displayed following the first random determination as being in an inactive state.
To this accord, Rogers teaches a known game mechanic including freezing or holding reels when no winning symbol is indicated on the payline, and re-spinning the other reels (see: 0023, 0116). That is, Rogers record each matrix position in which a winning symbol is not displayed as frozen or held (i.e., inactive).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the bonus game of Pariseau to have utilized the known type of game mechanic including recording inactive spaces as taught by Rogers in order to have increased the likelihood or probability that the player will obtain one or more awards in a game and specifically, one or more relatively large awards in a game, thereby increasing player enjoyment and excitement (see: Rogers: 0010).
2. The electronic gaming system of Claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to:
after recording each matrix position in which a COR symbol is not displayed as being in the inactive state, for each matrix position recorded as being in the active state, perform a second random determination (see: Pariseau: 0115, Fig. 5 (looping 504[Wingdings font/0xE0]518));
cause a COR symbol to be displayed in at least one of the matrix positions based on the second random determination (see: Pariseau: 0108 (credit prize symbol), 0109, Fig. 5 (506), Fig. 20 (116), Fig. 24 (116)); and
record each matrix position in which a COR symbol is not displayed following the second random determination as being in the inactive state (see: Rogers: 0023, 0116).
11. The electronic gaming system of Claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to execute a position tracking component that records the state of the plurality of matrix positions in the memory (see: 0048, 0076-0077).
Regarding claims 12-13, claims 12-13 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 1-2 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 12-13 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claim 20 is rejected under at least similar rationale.
Claim(s) 3-5, 7, 14-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pariseau in view of Rogers as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Djemal (US 11,816,959).
Regarding claim 3, Pariseau in view of Rogers teaches all of the above as noted but does not teach wherein the game interface further includes at least one metamorphic feature position configured to display a metamorphic feature symbol, though Pariseau does teach metamorphic features such as multipliers (e.g., 0106, 0113, 0118, Fig. 19).
To this accord, Djemal teaches a game interface that includes at least one metamorphic feature position configured to display a metamorphic feature symbol (see: col. 11 lines 40-65, col. 12 lines 54-63, col. 17 lines 23-31, Fig. 7-8 (40a-e)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the bonus game of Pariseau in view of Rogers to have utilized the known type of configured spaces as taught by Djemal in order to have provided a more efficient way of awarding prizes to a player of the gaming machine and/or optimising the use of screen space for the gaming machine (see: Djemal: col. 2 lines 33-35).
4. The electronic gaming system of Claim 3, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to:
cause the metamorphic feature symbol to be displayed in the at least one metamorphic feature position (see: Djemal: col. 11 lines 51-65); and
in response to the metamorphic feature symbol being displayed in the at least one metamorphic feature position, randomly determine to activate a metamorphic feature associated with the metamorphic feature symbol (see: Djemal: col. 12 lines 54-col. 13 line 3, col. 16 lines 58-64).
5. The electronic gaming system of Claim 4, wherein the game interface further includes at least one metamorphic feature indicator, and wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to, in response to the metamorphic feature being activated, cause a change in appearance of the at least one metamorphic feature indicator associated with the metamorphic feature (see: Djemal: col. 12 lines 54-col. 13 line 3, col. 16 lines 58-64).
7. The electronic gaming system of Claim 4, wherein the metamorphic feature symbol is a multiplier metamorphic feature symbol associated with a multiplier metamorphic feature (see: Pariseau: 0106, 0113, 0118, Fig. 19-20; Djemal: col. 19 lines 14-16 & 21-34), and wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to:
in response to the multiplier metamorphic feature being activated, designate at least one matrix position with a multiplier value (see: Pariseau: 0106, 0113, 0118, Fig. 19-20; Djemal: col. 19 lines 14-16 & 21-34); and
apply the multiplier value to an award of any COR symbol currently or subsequently displayed in the at least one matrix position (see: Pariseau: 0106, 0113, 0118, Fig. 19-20; Djemal: col. 19 lines 14-16 & 21-34).
Regarding claims 14-16 and 18, claims 14-16 and 18 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 3-5 and 7 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 14-16 and 18 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
Subject Matter Allowable Over the Prior Art
Each of the following claims is rejected on other grounds; however, the following claims are objected to as containing subject matter that is allowable over the prior art:
Claim 6 and parallel claim 17 are rejected on other grounds but objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 8 and parallel claim 19 are rejected on other grounds but objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 9 depends from claim 8 and is objected to therewith.
Claim 10 is rejected on other grounds but objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
DeBrabander (US 2025/0087057) discloses an ‘activation zone’. When an activator or group of activators occur on a symbol display at an automatic activation zone, the gaming system automatically activate each of the pots associated with those activators and thus the respective features associated with those pots (see: Fig. 2B (270), Fig. 2D (230, 240, 272), Fig. 2E (273), 0108, 0116). Features associated with the pot include growing reels, spin multipliers, adding wilds, lock and re-spin bonuses with a prize boost, etc. (see: 0041).
Ludwick (US 2022/084352) discloses a bonus game feature, matrix positions, and a metamorphic game feature (see: 0020, 0079-0083).
Berman (US 2004/0063488) discloses deactivating display cells based on an expiration count (see: 0016).
PTO form 892-U is a video demonstrating the bonus feature for ‘Lightening Dragon’, an electronic wagering game. The video demonstrates trigger a bonus (timestamp 1:23), spin bonuses (1:30) metamorphic spaces and activated cells (1:35-1:41). Sample screenshots have been provided. The full video is available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=We0qNxhlCWE.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
WILLIAM J. ALLEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/WILLIAM J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights