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 .
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 therefore, 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.
Step 1: It must be determined whether the invention falls into one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claims 1 – 7 and 15 - 20 are directed towards a medium and a system, (machine), and claims 8 - 14 are directed towards a method, (process), which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a:
Prong 1: It must be determined whether the invention is directed to judicially recognized exception. Claim 1 is analyzed below with limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea.
1. A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable code executable by one or more processors to: initiate a re-spin series using a linked reel strip mechanism comprising one or more reel strip data structures; for each of one or more iterations of the re-spin series: determine an outcome for the iteration from a current reel strip, and traverse the one or more reel strip data structures to select a next current reel strip based on a logical link provided in the current reel strip and associated with the outcome for the iteration; and generate an outcome for the re-spin series based on the next current reel strip.
The abstract idea is defined by the underlined portions exemplary claim 1, with substantially similar features found in claims 8 and 15. Dependent claims 2 – 7, 9 – 14, and 16 - 20 further define the abstract idea or relate to the implementation of the abstract idea. The abstract idea is defined in at least the following grouping below:
The claims are directed towards an abstract idea of rules for conducting a game which falls into the category of mental processes, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a gaming system that initiates a series of re-spins using a linked reel strip, wherein the gaming system determines and generates an outcome for the series of re-spins. The claimed invention can be practically performed as a mental process by a human managing a game comprising reel strips. A human can take control of the game and make game determinations in their mind. (Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The claims are also directed towards a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more humans, which fall into the category of mental processes, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a gaming system that initiates a series of re-spins using a linked reel strip. The claims further recite determining an outcome of a current reel strip and generating an outcome for the series of re-spins based on a next reel strip, and traversing one or more reel strips to select a reel strip. The claims recites instructions with these features. Here, a human can observe the series of spins corresponding to one or more reel strips, wherein a human can then make a determination of a next step to make based on the state of the reel strips. For example, in the event that a player is playing a slot machine game, a human can observe a reel outcome corresponding to a series of spins of one or more reel strips, wherein a human can then make a determination of which reel strip to select that is favorable to the player. Therefore, since the claimed invention can practically be performed in the human mind, it represents an ineligible abstract mental process. (Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F. 3d 1307). Furthermore, the claims are also drawn to how a game is played, which represents following rules/instructions that define how a game is played.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception?
The claims recite a generic processor along with instructions that determines and generates an outcome of a plurality of spins using linked reel strips, which is viewed as no more than instructions to implement a judicial exception.
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2b: It must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim language does recite one or more processors and one or more reel strips, however, viewed as a whole, these additional elements are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art, (See Timperley U.S. 2009/0264181 par. 0102 regarding a gaming system comprising a processor and reel strips as being well-known in the art). Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
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 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,562,617.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claims are drawn towards the system and method claim versions of the parent 11,562,617, except the current claims determine an outcome from a current reel strip and generate an outcome for the re-spin series based on a next reel strip, while the parent determines an outcome of multiple reel strips of a reel strip group and generating an outcome for the re-spin series based on outcomes of the re-spin series. Therefore, the current claims are a broader version of the parent claims regarding this feature, as shown in table below. Independent claims 8 and 15 includes similar language to that of independent claim 1, wherein dependent claims 2 – 7, 9 – 14, and 16 - 20 include identical language as the dependent claims in the parent 11,562,617. Therefore, the claims are not patentably distinct.
Pending Claim 1:
Patented Claim 1:
1. A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable code executable by one or more processors to: initiate a re-spin series using a linked reel strip mechanism comprising one or more reel strip data structures; for each of one or more iterations of the re-spin series: determine an outcome for the iteration from a current reel strip, and traverse the one or more reel strip data structures to select a next current reel strip based on a logical link provided in the current reel strip and associated with the outcome for the iteration; and generate an outcome for the re-spin series based on the next current reel strip.
1. A computer system comprising one or more processors and memory readable by the one or more processors, the memory having stored thereon computer-executable instructions for causing the one or more processors, when programmed thereby, to perform operations to control a user interface of an electronic gaming device, the operations comprising: starting, for a reel, a re-spin series that uses a linked reel strip mechanism; accessing the linked reel strip mechanism, wherein one or more data structures for the linked reel strip mechanism comprise, for each of multiple reel strip: a set of outcomes, and for each outcome, a logical link to an additional reel strip of the multiple reel strips of a reel strip group; for each of one or more iterations of the re-spin series: determining an outcome for the iteration of the re-spin series from a current reel strip of the multiple reel strips of the reel strip group; selecting a next current reel strip based on a logical link provided in the current reel strip and associated with the outcome for the iteration, thereby generating an outcome for the re-spin series, the outcome for the re-spin series being based on the one or more outcomes of the one or more iterations of the re-spin series.
Closest Prior Art
Regarding claims 1 – 20, the closest prior art, (Satterlie U.S. 2019/0073876), discloses an iterative re-spin process for one or more reel strips, (par. 0013 and par. 0200), however, Satterlie is silent on disclosing selecting a next reel strip based on a logical link provided in a current reel strip and associated with an outcome for the iteration.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1699. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
/E.M.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/JUSTIN L MYHR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights