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 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.
Step 1:
Claims 1-14 are drawn to a method (process).
Claims 15-20 are drawn to a gaming machine (machine).
Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
However, under Step 2A, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The claims are directed to the abstract idea of fundamental economic practices (i.e. wagering).
Let us begin by considering the requirements of each independent claim:
Thus, let us take Claim 1 as exemplary:
A method of operating a gaming machine, the method comprising the operations of:
presenting, by a presentation assembly of a graphical user interface, a modifier, an array and a plurality of symbol-bearing reels, the symbols comprising base symbols, value-bearing symbols and a catalyst symbol, the modifier initialized to a predetermined reset value by game-logic circuitry;
animating, via the presentation assembly, a spin of the reels to land symbols from the reels in the array;
animating, via the presentation assembly, winning combinations of the base symbols according to a paytable (certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic practices such as wagering; wagering includes actions such as receiving an input/wager, determining an outcome, and using the outcome to settle the wager);
in response to the landed symbols including the catalyst symbol and no value-bearing symbols:
animating, via the presentation assembly, an improvement to the modifier; and
in response to the landed symbols including the catalyst symbol and value-bearing symbols:
animating, via the presentation assembly, application of the improved modifier to the values borne by the value-bearing symbols, awarding the sum of the newly-improved values (certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic practices such as wagering; wagering includes actions such as receiving an input/wager, determining an outcome, and using the outcome to settle the wager), and
resetting the modifier to the predetermined reset value.
Under broadest reasonable interpretation, independent claims 1 and 15 are directed to the fundamental economic practice of wagering, aside from the reference to a generic computer or generic gaming components (e.g. a presentation assembly of a graphical user interface, game-logic circuitry).
The second prong of Step 2A, ask whether the claims recite additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Here, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 15 recite the additional elements of a presentation assembly of a graphical user interface and game-logic circuitry, along with the steps of presenting a modifier, an array and a plurality of symbol-bearing reels, animating an improvement to the modifier and resetting the modifier. The presentation assembly of a graphical user interface and game-logic circuitry are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. a generic computer or gaming components performing generic computer functions like processing and displaying data) and do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because it amounts to simply invoking a computer or generic gaming components as a tool to perform an existing process in their ordinary capacity and/or generally linking the abstract idea to a technological environment. In other words, the claims invoke the presentation assembly of a graphical user interface and game-logic circuitry merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of presenting a modifier, an array and a plurality of symbol-bearing reels, animating an improvement to the modifier, and resetting the modifier are considered insignificant extra-solution activities related to displaying data and do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Step 2B asks whether a claimed invention which fails Step 2A contains an inventive concept, i.e. significantly more. Independent claims 1 and 15 do not include additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the presentation assembly of a graphical user interface and game-logic circuitry are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computer functions like processing and displaying data) and simply amount to implementing the abstract idea using a generic computer or gaming components. The additional elements that were considered insignificant pre-solution or extra-solution activity have been re-analyzed and do not amount to anything more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d), Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result--a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink AND Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93).
The combination of additional elements adds nothing that is not already present when considered separately. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims
Claims 2-14 and 16-20 inherit the same abstract idea as claims 1 and 15.
Claims 2-14 and 16-20 recite further additional element limitations related to wagering (i.e. displaying reels, displaying various symbols, modifiers/multipliers, paytables, bonus games, jackpots). These additional elements, under their BRI, fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping(s) of abstract ideas and/or are additional elements that are considered insignificant pre-solution or extra-solution activities, and do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea and do not amount to anything more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional, as would flow naturally from the similar recitations discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-13, 15-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohn et al. (US 2023/0154285 A1) in view of Wilson, Jr. et al. (US 6,004,207).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Cohn discloses a method of operating a gaming machine, the method comprising the operations of:
presenting, by a presentation assembly of a graphical user interface, a modifier, an array and a plurality of symbol-bearing reels, the symbols comprising base symbols, value-bearing symbols and a catalyst symbol, the modifier initialized to a predetermined reset value by game-logic circuitry (see figs. 4-11 and par. [0038], In the game images, the standard symbols are GRAPE, APPLE, CHERRY, BANANA, WATERMELON, EGGPLANT, and SEVEN; the value-bearing symbols are ENVELOPE (which looks like a rectangle); and a colored COIN symbol landing in the array serves as a catalyst for awarding the ENVELOPE values and changing a pay multiplier in indicator 206 for the next spin(s) based on the color of the COIN symbol);
animating, via the presentation assembly, a spin of the reels to land symbols from the reels in the array (see par. [0031], The reel spin is animated by depicting symbol-bearing strips moving vertically across the display and synchronously updating the symbols visible on each strip as the strip moves across the display);
animating, via the presentation assembly, winning combinations of the base symbols according to a paytable (see par. [0035], At step 110, the game-logic circuitry awards payouts for any standard pays (e.g., line pays and scatter pays) as determined by the game's pay table);
in response to the landed symbols including the catalyst symbol and no value-bearing symbols: animating, via the presentation assembly, an improvement to the modifier (see par. [0036], At step 116, the game-logic circuitry modifies the pay multiplier in indicator 206 for the next spin(s) based on the color of the COIN symbol that landed in the array at step 112. The value of the pay multiplier persists (i.e., remains unchanged) until a later spin yields another COIN symbol in the array); and
in response to the landed symbols including the catalyst symbol and value-bearing symbols: animating, via the presentation assembly, application of the improved modifier to the values borne by the value-bearing symbols, awarding the sum of the newly-improved values (see par. [0041], The blue COIN symbol 222 b serves as a catalyst for awarding the two ENVELOPE values. The third spin outcome in FIG. 6 yields a total payout of 16200 credits: 900 credits (for the two ENVELOPE symbols) multiplied by 18×).
However, Cohn does not explicitly disclose resetting the modifier to the predetermined reset value.
Wilson, Jr. teaches a slot machine with an incremental pay-off multiplier including resetting the multiplier to the predetermined reset value (see col. 3, lines 53-56, When a winning combination occurs on the pay line, the normal payout is multiplied by the multiplier value X, and the value of X will normally return to its lowest value; also see Abstract, Whenever a multiplied payout occurs, the multiplier is reset to a minimum value). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of Cohn with the modifier reset of Wilson, Jr. so that a player is enticed into remaining at the machine until the payout is made and to provide a simple means for altering the payout ratio of the machine (see Wilson, Jr. col 1, lines 58-67).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Cohn discloses wherein each of the plurality of symbol-bearing reels is associated with a respective column in the array (see figs. 4-11).
Regarding claim 3, Cohn discloses in response to the landed symbols including the catalyst symbol, animating, via the presentation assembly, expansion of the catalyst symbol to fill a demarcated area of the array (see par. [0048], Alternatively, the COIN symbol may move or “float” from its landing position to each of the ENVELOPE symbols; moving to additional areas of the display can be considered an expansion).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Cohn discloses wherein the modifier comprises a multiplier (see par. [0036], At step 114, the game-logic circuitry awards the values borne by any value-bearing symbols (e.g., the three ENVELOPE symbols bearing the credit values 300, 800, and 450 in FIG. 4 ) multiplied by the pay multiplier (e.g., multiplier 1× in indicator 206 in FIG. 4 )).
Regarding claim 5, Cohn discloses wherein the modifier comprises an adder (see par. [0052], The COIN symbols may be associated with other modifiers besides, or in addition to, pay multipliers, including for example different credit amounts; thus the modifier could be different credit amounts being added to the payout instead of a multiplier).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Cohn discloses wherein the improvement to the modifier comprises applying a predetermined fixed amount to the modifier (see par. [0049], As stated above, the green COIN symbol, the blue COIN symbol, and the red COIN symbol are associated with respective pay multipliers 1×, 8×, and 18×).
Regarding claim 7, Cohn discloses wherein the improvement to the modifier comprises applying a randomly-determined amount to the modifier (see par. [0049], In another embodiment, there is only one type of COIN symbol and, when the COIN symbol lands in the array, the game randomly selects a pay multiplier that persists through future spins until the COIN symbol re-appears in the array).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Cohn discloses wherein the paytable comprises line pays and wherein the paytable comprises scatter pays (see par. [0034], The pay table may, for example, include “line pays” and “scatter pays.”).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, Cohn discloses wherein the animated presentation of the spin of the reels is initiated in response to a wager (see par. [0027], In accord with various methods of conducting a wagering game on a gaming system in accord with the present concepts, the wagering game includes a game sequence in which a player makes a wager and a wagering-game outcome is provided or displayed in response to the wager being received or detected).
Regarding claim 12, Cohn discloses wherein the animated presentation of the spin of the reels is part of a bonus game (see par. [0047], The features described above in connection with wagered spin outcomes of the base game may also be used in connection with a bonus game including a series of free spins. In this regard, the bonus game may be constructed to guarantee that a colored COIN symbol will land in the array in each free spin outcome).
Regarding claim 13, Cohn discloses wherein the value-bearing symbols bear credit amounts (see figs. 4-11 and par. [0040], two ENVELOPE symbols bearing values of 200 and 500 credits).
Claim(s) 8, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohn et al. (US 2023/0154285 A1) in view of Wilson, Jr. et al. (US 6,004,207) and further in view of Halvorson et al. (US 2021/0110636 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, the combination of Cohn and Wilson, Jr. discloses the method as discussed above. However, the combination of Cohn and Wilson, Jr. does not explicitly disclose wherein the paytable comprises ways pays.
Halvorson teaches a gaming system wherein the paytable comprises ways pays (see par. [0090], For example, the gaming system may use ways-pays (e.g., all-ways pays)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of Cohn and Wilson, Jr. with the ways pays of Halvorson as this is merely substituting one type of paytable for another to produce the similar result of providing a paytable for the game (see Halvorson, par. [0090], “an alternative to pay lines”).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Cohn and Wilson, Jr. discloses the method as discussed above. However, the combination of Cohn and Wilson, Jr. does not explicitly disclose wherein the value-bearing symbols bear identification of an associated jackpot.
Halvorson teaches a gaming system including value-bearing symbols which can bear identification of an associated jackpot (see fig. 5E and par. [0139], As illustrated in FIG. 5E, in some implementations, at least some of the jackpot awards may be triggered by the generation and display of an award symbol indicating the jackpot award (e.g., “Major” award symbol displayed in symbol display area 515E, “Mini” award symbol displayed in symbol display area 515F)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of Cohn and Wilson, Jr. with the jackpot and jackpot symbols of Halvorson so that the player can win awards associated with various jackpots as determined by the game.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Marks et al. (US 11,551,508 B2)- teaches a hold and spin feature game
Baerlocher et al. (US 7,666,083 B2)- teaches a gaming device including an accumulated modifier
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11:00 AM EST to 7:00 PM EST.
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.
/ALLEN CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 9/19/2026
Prosecution Insights