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 .
Procedural Summary
This is responsive to the claims filed 02/07/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The Drawings filed on 02/07/2025 are noted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the feature game" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
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).
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 § 2146 et seq. 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).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4-15, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 and 18 of U.S. Patent 12,249,216. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims 1, 13, and 18 anticipate the more generic or broader claims 1, 15, and 18, now pending. That is, the rationale of In re Goodman applies here in that once Applicant has received a patent for a species or a more specific embodiment, Applicant is not entitled to a patent for the generic or broader invention without maintaining common ownership and ensuring that the term of the latter issued patent will expire at the end of the original term of the earlier issued patent. For at least these reasons, the claims are not found to be patentably distinct from each other. The claims have been analyzed in the claim chart below.
Instant Application: 19/048,470
U.S. Patent 12,249,216
Similarities and Differences
1. An electronic gaming system comprising:
a memory; and
a processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory, which when executed, cause the processor to:
cause display of a plurality of reels in a primary play area for a first play instance;
cause display of a plurality of symbol columns in a secondary play area, each symbol column of the plurality of symbol columns being aligned with a reel of the plurality of reels;
distribute a number of secondary symbols into the plurality of symbol columns for the first play instance, the number of secondary symbols supplementing symbols on the plurality of reels; and
cause display of an outcome of the first play instance, wherein the outcome is based at least in part on attributing the secondary symbols to their associated reels.
1. An electronic gaming system comprising:
a memory; and
a processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory, which when executed, cause the processor to:
cause display of a plurality of reels in a primary play area for a first play instance;
cause display of a plurality of symbol columns in a secondary play area, each symbol column of the plurality of symbol columns being positioned in association with a reel of the plurality of reels;
generate an output of a random number generator (“RNG”);
perform a lookup of a weighted table stored in the memory using the RNG output;
distribute, based on the lookup, a number of secondary symbols into the plurality of symbol columns for the first play instance, the number of secondary symbols supplementing symbols on the plurality of reels; and
cause display of an outcome of the first play instance, wherein the outcome is based at least in part on attributing the secondary symbols to their associated reels.
Both claims recite the memory, processor, reels in a primary play area, symbol columns in a secondary play area, distribute a number of secondary symbols, and wherein the outcome is based at least in part on attributing the secondary symbols to their associated reels.
The difference is that patented claim 1 adds the RNG and perform a lookup of weighted table using the RNG output. They are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims anticipate the more generic or broader claims now pending.
4. The electronic gaming system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to determine a credit award based on the outcome.
2. The electronic gaming system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to determine a credit award based on the outcome.
Both claims recite the same subject matter.
5. The electronic gaming system of claim 1,
wherein the instructions further cause the processor to cause display of a spinning wheel, the wheel including a plurality of wheel spots that award one or more secondary game symbols, the spinning of the wheel identifying the number of secondary symbols that are distributed.
3. The electronic gaming system of claim 1,
wherein the instructions further cause the processor to cause display of a spinning wheel, the wheel including a plurality of wheel spots that award one or more secondary game symbols, the spinning of the wheel identifying the number of secondary symbols that are distributed.
Both claims recite the same subject matter.
6. The electronic gaming system of claim 1,
wherein the first play instance is a first play instance of a feature game including a plurality of play instances, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to:
cause display of a spin of the plurality of reels for a second play instance of the feature game; and
distribute an additional number of secondary symbols available for use during each play instance of the feature game.
4. The electronic gaming system of claim 1,
wherein the first play instance is a first play instance of a feature game including a plurality of play instances, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to:
cause display of a spin of the plurality of reels for a second play instance of the feature game; and
distribute an additional number of secondary symbols available for use during each play instance of the feature game.
Both claims recite the same subject matter.
7. The electronic gaming system of claim 6, wherein the spin results in a retrigger event, and wherein the instructions further cause the processor to award additional play instances of the feature game in response to the retrigger event.
5. The electronic gaming system of claim 4, wherein the spin results in a retrigger event, and wherein the instructions further cause the processor to award additional play instances of the feature game in response to the retrigger event.
Both claims recite the same subject matter.
8. The electronic gaming system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to:
cause display of a spin of the plurality of reels in response for second play instance, the spin resulting in a retrigger event; and award a spin of a feature game wheel in response to the retrigger event.
6. The electronic gaming system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to:
cause display of a spin of the plurality of reels in response for second play instance, the spin resulting in a retrigger event; and award a spin of a feature game wheel in response to the retrigger event.
Both claims recite the same subject matter.
9. The electronic gaming system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to:
cause display of a multiplier symbol panel on the secondary play area; and
in response to the outcome including one or more multiplier symbols on the reels, cause display of the one or more multiplier symbols in the multiplier symbol panel.
7. The electronic gaming system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to:
cause display of a multiplier symbol panel on the secondary play area; and
in response to the outcome including one or more multiplier symbols on the reels, cause display of the one or more multiplier symbols in the multiplier symbol panel.
Both claims recite the same subject matter.
10. The electronic gaming system of claim 9, wherein the multiplier symbol panel includes a plurality of spots,
wherein each spot of the plurality of spots is associated with a reel of the plurality of reels,
wherein displaying the one or more multiplier symbols includes displaying the one or more multiplier symbols in the spot of the plurality of spots associated with the reel upon which the multiplier symbol occurs.
8. The electronic gaming system of claim 7, wherein the multiplier symbol panel includes a plurality of spots,
wherein each spot of the plurality of spots is associated with a reel of the plurality of reels,
wherein displaying the one or more multiplier symbols includes displaying the one or more multiplier symbols in the spot of the plurality of spots associated with the reel upon which the multiplier symbol occurs.
Both claims recite the same subject matter.
11. The electronic gaming system of claim 9, wherein the multiplier symbol panel is displayed in the secondary play area above a highest stack of secondary symbols of the plurality of symbol columns.
9. The electronic gaming system of claim 7, wherein the multiplier symbol panel is displayed in the secondary play area above a highest stack of secondary symbols of the plurality of symbol columns.
Both claims recite the same subject matter.
12. The electronic gaming system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to cause display of a current number of secondary symbols awarded for use during feature game play.
10. The electronic gaming system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to cause display of a current number of secondary symbols awarded for use during feature game play.
Both claims recite the same subject matter.
13. The electronic gaming system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to:
identify a distribution lookup table from a plurality of distribution lookup tables based on the number of distributed secondary symbols;
generate a random number generator (RNG) output for use in distributing feature game symbols into the plurality of symbol columns for the first play instance of the feature game; and
identify a row in the identified distribution lookup table based on the RNG output,
wherein distributing the number of secondary symbols includes distributing the number of secondary symbols based on the identified row.
(Also incorporating Claim 1 above) 11. The electronic gaming system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to:
identify the lookup table from a plurality of distribution lookup tables based on the number of distributed secondary symbols; and
identify a row in the lookup table based on the RNG output,
wherein distributing the number of secondary symbols includes distributing the number of secondary symbols based on the identified row.
The similarities both claims include generating an RNG output, selecting a plurality of distribution lookup tables by the number of distributed symbols, selecting a row by the RNG output and distributing the number of secondary symbols based on the identified row.
14. The electronic gaming system of claim 1, wherein each reel of the plurality of reels is a mechanical reel.
12. The electronic gaming system of claim 1, wherein each reel of the plurality of reels is a mechanical reel.
Both claims recite the same subject matter.
15. A non-transitory computer-readable media containing instructions embodied thereon which, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
cause display of a plurality of reels in a primary play area for a first play instance;
cause display of a plurality of symbol columns in a secondary play area, each symbol column of the plurality of symbol columns being aligned with a reel of the plurality of reels;
distribute a number of secondary symbols into the plurality of symbol columns for the first play instance, the number of secondary symbols supplementing symbols on the plurality of reels; and
cause display of an outcome of the first play instance, wherein the outcome is based at least in part on attributing the secondary symbols to their associated reels.
13. A non-transitory computer-readable media containing instructions embodied thereon which, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
cause display of a plurality of reels in a primary play area for a first play instance;
cause display of a plurality of symbol columns in a secondary play area, each symbol column of the plurality of symbol columns being positioned in association with a reel of the plurality of reels;
generate an output of a random number generator (“RNG”);
perform a lookup of a weighted table using the RNG output;
distribute, based on the lookup, a number of secondary symbols into the plurality of symbol columns for the first play instance, the number of secondary symbols supplementing symbols on the plurality of reels; and
cause display of an outcome of the first play instance, wherein the outcome is based at least in part on attributing the secondary symbols to their associated reels.
Both claims recite a non-transitory computer-readable media containing instructions embodied thereon which, when executed by at least one processor, reels in a primary play area, symbol columns in a secondary play area, distribute a number of secondary symbols, and wherein the outcome is based at least in part on attributing the secondary symbols to their associated reels.
The difference is that patented claim 1 adds the RNG and perform a lookup of weighted table using the RNG output. They are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims anticipate the more generic or broader claims now pending.
18. A gaming device comprising:
a display device; and
a game controller configured to execute instructions stored in a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium, which, when executed by the game controller, cause the game controller to at least:
cause display of a plurality of reels in a primary play area of the display device for a first play instance;
cause display of a plurality of symbol columns in a secondary play area of the display device, each symbol column of the plurality of symbol columns being positioned in alignment with a reel of the plurality of reels;
distribute a number of secondary symbols into the plurality of symbol columns for the first play instance, the number of secondary symbols supplementing symbols on the plurality of reels; and
cause display on the display device of an outcome of the first play instance, wherein the outcome is based at least in part on attributing the secondary symbols to their associated reels.
18. A gaming device comprising:
a display device; and
a game controller configured to execute instructions stored in a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium, which, when executed by the game controller, cause the game controller to at least:
cause display of a plurality of reels in a primary play area of the display device for a first play instance;
cause display of a plurality of symbol columns in a secondary play area of the display device, each symbol column of the plurality of symbol columns being positioned in association with a reel of the plurality of reels;
generate an output of a random number generator (“RNG”);
perform a lookup of a weighted table using the RNG output;
distribute, based on the lookup, a number of secondary symbols into the plurality of symbol columns for the first play instance, the number of secondary symbols supplementing symbols on the plurality of reels; and
cause display on the display device of an outcome of the first play instance, wherein the outcome is based at least in part on attributing the secondary symbols to their associated reels.
Both claims recite a display device, a game controller configured to execute instructions stored in a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium, reels in a primary play area, symbol columns in a secondary play area, distribute a number of secondary symbols, and wherein the outcome is based at least in part on attributing the secondary symbols to their associated reels.
The difference is that patented claim 1 adds the RNG and perform a lookup of weighted table using the RNG output. They are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims anticipate the more generic or broader claims now pending.
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 non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Each of Claims 1-20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
The examiner follows the two step-analysis, as described in MPEP 2106 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html).
Step 1
Step 1 of the two step-analysis considers whether the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention such as a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The instant invention claims an electronic gaming system in claims 1-14, a non-transitory computer-readable media in claims 15-17, and a gaming device in claims 18-20. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad statutory categories of invention. However, claims that fall within one of the four statutory categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon. The term “abstract idea” is not interpreted as a layperson might. Instead, the term “abstract idea” is interpreted as described in legal opinions by courts.
According to MPEP 2106.04(a):
the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
The limitations of each independent claim recite a series of steps that are certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including following rules or instructions – specifically rules for playing a wagering game. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). The limitations also recite a series of steps which can be practically performed in the human mind through mental processes (for example, observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion)(see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The Federal Circuit has also held that rules of conducting a wagering game are abstract ideas. In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The limitations of the independent and dependent claims include the following abstract ideas below in italicized claim language:
Independent Claim 1 recites: “1. An electronic gaming system comprising:
a memory (additional element); and
a processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory (additional element), which when executed, cause the processor to:
cause display of a plurality of reels in a primary play area for a first play instance (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game),
cause display of a plurality of symbol columns in a secondary play area, each symbol column of the plurality of symbol columns being aligned with a reel of the plurality of reels (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game),
distribute a number of secondary symbols into the plurality of symbol columns for the first play instance, the number of secondary symbols supplementing symbols on the plurality of reels (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game),
cause display of an outcome of the first play instance, wherein the outcome is based at least in part on attributing the secondary symbols to their associated reels (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game),
wherein a first symbol column of the plurality of symbol columns is aligned with a first reel of the plurality of reels, wherein distributing the number of secondary symbols into the plurality of symbol columns includes distributing a first symbol into the first symbol column, and wherein the outcome is based on attributing the first symbol to the first reel (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game),
wherein the first symbol column is linearly aligned with the first reel (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game),
wherein the instructions further cause the processor to determine a credit award based on the outcome (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game),
wherein the instructions further cause the processor to cause display of a spinning wheel, the wheel including a plurality of wheel spots that award one or more secondary game symbols, the spinning of the wheel identifying the number of secondary symbols that are distributed (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game),
wherein the first play instance is a first play instance of a feature game including a plurality of play instances, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to:
cause display of a spin of the plurality of reels for a second play instance of the feature game (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game),
distribute an additional number of secondary symbols available for use during each play instance of the feature game (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game),
wherein the spin results in a retrigger event, and wherein the instructions further cause the processor to award additional play instances of the feature game in response to the retrigger event (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game),
wherein the instructions further cause the processor to:
cause display of a spin of the plurality of reels in response for second play instance, the spin resulting in a retrigger event (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game), and
award a spin of a feature game wheel in response to the retrigger event (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game),
wherein the instructions further cause the processor to:
cause display of a multiplier symbol panel on the secondary play area (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game), and
in response to the outcome including one or more multiplier symbols on the reels, cause display of the one or more multiplier symbols in the multiplier symbol panel (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game),
wherein the multiplier symbol panel includes a plurality of spots, wherein each spot of the plurality of spots is associated with a reel of the plurality of reels, wherein displaying the one or more multiplier symbols includes displaying the one or more multiplier symbols in the spot of the plurality of spots associated with the reel upon which the multiplier symbol occurs (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game),
wherein the multiplier symbol panel is displayed in the secondary play area above a highest stack of secondary symbols of the plurality of symbol columns (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game),
wherein the instructions further cause the processor to cause display of a current number of secondary symbols awarded for use during feature game play (abstract idea: mental process – observation, keeping and reporting a running count),
wherein the instructions further cause the processor to:
identify a distribution lookup table from a plurality of distribution lookup tables based on the number of distributed secondary symbols (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game),
generate a random number generator (RNG) (additional element) output for use in distributing feature game symbols into the plurality of symbol columns for the first play instance of the feature game (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game), and
identify a row in the identified distribution lookup table based on the RNG output, wherein distributing the number of secondary symbols includes distributing the number of secondary symbols based on the identified row (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game), and
wherein each reel of the plurality of reels is a mechanical reel (additional element).
Independent claim 15 and its dependent claims recite: “15. A non-transitory computer-readable media containing instructions embodied thereon which, when executed by at least one processor (additional element), cause the at least one processor to:
cause display of a plurality of reels in a primary play area for a first play instance (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game),
cause display of a plurality of symbol columns in a secondary play area, each symbol column of the plurality of symbol columns being aligned with a reel of the plurality of reels (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game),
distribute a number of secondary symbols into the plurality of symbol columns for the first play instance, the number of secondary symbols supplementing symbols on the plurality of reels (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game),
cause display of an outcome of the first play instance, wherein the outcome is based at least in part on attributing the secondary symbols to their associated reels (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game),
wherein a first symbol column of the plurality of symbol columns is aligned with a first reel of the plurality of reels, wherein distributing the number of secondary symbols into the plurality of symbol columns includes distributing a first symbol into the first symbol column, and wherein the outcome is based on attributing the first symbol to the first reel (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game), and
wherein the first symbol column is linearly aligned with the first reel (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game).
Independent Claim 18 and its dependent claims recite: “18. A gaming device comprising:
a display device (additional element); and
a game controller (additional element) configured to execute instructions stored in a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium (additional element), which, when executed by the game controller, cause the game controller to at least:
cause display of a plurality of reels in a primary play area of the display device for a first play instance (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game),
cause display of a plurality of symbol columns in a secondary play area of the display device, each symbol column of the plurality of symbol columns being positioned in alignment with a reel of the plurality of reels (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game),
distribute a number of secondary symbols into the plurality of symbol columns for the first play instance, the number of secondary symbols supplementing symbols on the plurality of reels (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game),
cause display on the display device of an outcome of the first play instance, wherein the outcome is based at least in part on attributing the secondary symbols to their associated reels (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game),
wherein a first symbol column of the plurality of symbol columns is aligned with a first reel of the plurality of reels, wherein distributing the number of secondary symbols into the plurality of symbol columns includes distributing a first symbol into the first symbol column, and wherein the outcome is based on attributing the first symbol to the first reel (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game), and
wherein the first symbol column is linearly aligned with the first reel (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game).
The steps/limitations identified above are akin to certain methods of organizing human activity –following a set of rules for conducting/playing a wagering game, which falls within the groupings of abstract ideas. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the additional elements in the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. To do so, the examiner looks to the following exemplary considerations, looking at the elements individually and in combination:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a));
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda Memo);
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(b);
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); and
an additional element 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e)).
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, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements in the claims are a memory, a display device, a processor, a game controller, a non-transitory computer-readable media, mechanical reels, and a random number generator. Each additional element is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a general-purpose gaming machine used as a tool to carry out the game rules. The claims contain no technical detail of how the symbol distribution is computed, how the display is generated, or how any component operates. They recite the results to be achieved. Reciting a generic computer environment in which to conduct a game is generally linking the exception to a field of use. MPEP 2106.05(f), (h). The display limitations – the primary play area, the secondary play area, the spinning wheel and the count of available symbols – are the presentation and arrangement of information on a display screen. Presenting information in a particular arrangement, without more, is not a technical improvement. Electric Power Group V. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The RNG performs insignificant extra-solution data generation. MPEP 2106.05(g).
Even when the limitations are viewed in combination, these additional elements in the claims do no more than automate the organizing activities needed to be performed, using the one or 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).
Furthermore, the additional elements do not serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Accordingly, the claims as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and these claims are directed to the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
Finally, under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements are indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) by the following considerations:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a));
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda Memo);
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(b);
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); and
an additional element 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The examiner also evaluates whether the additional elements add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (MPEP 2106.05(d)), which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present.
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)); generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)); or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo)).
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements identified under Prong 2, are recited at a high level of generality and perform insignificant extra-solution output and data-generation activity. The specification confirms their well-understood, routine and conventional character as it describes the electronic gaming machines generically as devices that “provide a variety of wagering games such as, for example, and without limitation, slot games, video poker games, … and other types of games that are frequently offered at casinos,” and describes game play in terms of a credit balance, a wager, a base game, a secondary game and a printed cash-out ticket, without supplying structural or operational detail of the processor, memory, display, or RNG. (See specification at paras. [0003], [0006]-[0007]).
Additionally, taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in the claims do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to conduct an activity with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. The above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For at least the above reasons, the claims are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process, certain methods of organizing human activity) on a general purpose gaming machine without (i) improving the performance of the computer/gaming machine itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
AIA Notice
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.
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 of this title, 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0096185 A1 to Meyer in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0065663 A1 to Johnson et al. (hereafter Johnson).
Regarding Claim 1, and similarly recited Claims 15 and 18, Meyer discloses an electronic gaming system comprising:
a display device (fig. 1 display 54); and
a game controller configured to execute instructions stored in a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium (fig. 1, game controller 60),
a memory (fig. 1, memory 64, ¶¶ [0033], [0056] discloses memory 64); and
a processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory (fig. 1, processor 62, ¶¶ [0033], [0056] discloses processor 62), which when executed, cause the processor to:
cause display of a plurality of reels in a primary play area for a first play instance (fig. 9 displays reels 921-925 for the current game round, ¶¶ [0071] discloses five reels 921-925);
cause display of a plurality of symbol columns in a secondary play area, each symbol column of the plurality of symbol columns being aligned with a reel of the plurality of reels (fig. 9, ¶¶ [0071] discloses the current symbol collection state of each reel is indicated graphically by dynamite sticks above the reels from which it is apparent that three dynamite sticks 941A, 941B, 941C have been collected in respect of reel 921, for example 941A-941C above reel 921, 942A-942C above reel 922, and 945A-945C above reel 925); and
cause display of an outcome of the first play instance, wherein the outcome is based at least in part on attributing the secondary symbols to their associated reels (¶¶ [0066] discloses if the random number generator returns a value within a designated range, the number of wild symbols that have already been collected are immediately added to the reels as wild symbols in the current play of the game and the outcome evaluator 623 evaluates the game outcome based on pay table 642 in accordance with the wild symbols as added to the display. That is, if one wild symbol has been collected for a reel, one wild symbol is added to that reel, if two wild symbols have been collected for a reel, two wild symbols are added, etc.).
Meyer populates the columns with special symbols collected from reels over one or more plays. Meyer does not explicitly disclose “distribute a number of secondary symbols into the plurality of symbol columns for the first play instance, the number of secondary symbols supplementing symbols on the plurality of reels.”
In a related invention, Johnson discloses distribute a number of secondary symbols into the plurality of symbol columns for the first play instance, the number of secondary symbols supplementing symbols on the plurality of reels (¶¶ [0004] discloses the game with five reels and has four positions on each reel. As the player spins the reels, the number of positions available on each reel grows randomly… fig. 2A, step 2006, ¶¶ [0034]-[0035] discloses after the play input, the game determines preferably by random number generation, whether the symbol matrix will expand and how much, and where the amount can be randomly determined… fig. 2A, steps 2012-2014, ¶¶ [0037] discloses the added positions are then filled with the symbols that constitute the game result for the current game play … ¶¶ [0038], step 2016 discloses the base and added symbols are evaluated for that play which may occur in a single step … ¶¶ [0028]-[0029], fig. 1G discloses the added symbols give enhanced odds that winning, scatter, and bonus patterns form and a bonus symbol that lands in the added top row completes a bonus).
Both Meyer and Johnson disclose video reel games that use a random number generator (Meyer, fig. 6 RNG 621, Johnson ¶¶ [0034]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Meyer so that for a given game play the game controller determines a number of symbols to distribute onto the reels as taught by Johnson in order to provide a higher chance of a winning combination because more symbols will be counted with each reel for evaluation outcome (Johnson, ¶¶ [0028]).
Regarding Claim 2, and similarly recited Claims 16 and 19, Meyer in view of Johnson discloses the electronic gaming system of claim 1, wherein a first symbol column of the plurality of symbol columns is aligned with a first reel of the plurality of reels, wherein distributing the number of secondary symbols into the plurality of symbol columns includes distributing a first symbol into the first symbol column, and wherein the outcome is based on attributing the first symbol to the first reel (Meyer, fig. 9, ¶¶ [0071] discloses reel 921 and its column 941A-C is the first reel/first column pair; the added symbol is attributed to reel 921 only – “one wild symbol is added to that reel”).
Regarding Claim 3, and similarly recited claims 17 and 20, Meyer in view of Johnson discloses the electronic gaming system of claim 2, wherein the first symbol column is linearly aligned with the first reel (Meyer, fig. 9, ¶¶ [0071]-[0072] shows the collection column directly above and in vertical alignment with its reel).
Regarding Claim 4, Meyer in view of Johnson discloses the electronic gaming system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to determine a credit award based on the outcome (Meyer, fig. 7, ¶¶ [0066] discloses the outcome evaluator 623 evaluates the game outcome based on pay table 642 in accordance with the wild symbols as added to the display; Johnson, ¶¶ [0038] steps 2018 and 2022 discloses where it awards any wins, and proceeds to step 2020 to evaluate the expanded area of the matrix for additional winning patterns).
Regarding Claim Regarding Claim 6, Meyer in view of Johnson discloses the electronic gaming system of claim 1, wherein the first play instance is a first play instance of a feature game including a plurality of play instances, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to:
cause display of a spin of the plurality of reels for a second play instance of the feature game and distribute an additional number of secondary symbols available for use during each play instance of the feature game (Meyer, fig. 11, ¶¶ [0074]-[0075] discloses a series of free games upon the trigger condition being met during which multiple special symbols (double or triple dynamite 1161, 1162) add more symbols to the collection per play… thus the player can collect symbols rapidly”; Johnson, fig. 2C, ¶¶ [0051]-[0052] discloses step 2230 the process expands the matrix to add another row and adds another free spin to the player's free spin count).
Regarding Claim 7, Meyer in view of Johnson discloses the electronic gaming system of claim 6, wherein the spin results in a retrigger event, and wherein the instructions further cause the processor to award additional play instances of the feature game in response to the retrigger event (Johnson, ¶¶ [0052] discloses that when a free spin produces qualifying expand symbols, “one additional free spin is award” … ¶¶ [0048]-[0049] fig. 2C, steps 220 and 2230 and fig. 2D, step 2320 discloses the free-spin count increases by one and at step 2302 where the process has already triggered a free spin bonus game. The process first enters the number of free spins the player has been awarded to the free spin counter)(A spin that results in this event is a retrigger event and the added free spin is an additional play instance of the feature game). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Meyer to award additional game play instances in order to extend play of the feature game and provide further winning opportunities for the player of the game.
Regarding Claim 12, Meyer in view of Johnson discloses the electronic gaming system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to cause display of a current number of secondary symbols awarded for use during feature game play (Meyer, fig. 11, ¶¶ [0073]-[0075] discloses displaying the current number of collected symbols – thirteen wild symbols 910 have been collected, including during the free-games feature).
Regarding Claim 14, Meyers discloses the electronic gaming system of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein each reel of the plurality of reels is a mechanical reel.
In a related invention, Johnson discloses wherein each reel of the plurality of reels is a mechanical reel (¶¶ [0065]-[0066] discloses the game may use a mechanical reel-type display for the primary game together with a video display device for presenting the expanded positions separately, and refers to the reel assembly 213 in a mechanical reel configuration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system/machine of Meyer to implement the mechanical reels/reel configuration as disclosed by Johnson in order to provide a known physical/reel-based mechanism for presenting the game symbols. Such a modification would have amounted to the use of a known reel implementation in a known gaming machine to perform the predictable result of presenting symbols used to determine a game outcome.
Claims 5, 8-11 and 13 are not rejected under the prior art on the present record. The claims stand rejected under the ground of nonstatutory double patenting and under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (claim 13). Thus they are not indicated as allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and is provided in the Notice of References cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUNA-KAY HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/S.N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/JAMES B HULL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights