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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 6-7 and 15-16, they depend from allowable claims 5 and 14, respectively. Therefore, claims 6-7 and 15-16 are also held allowable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 10, 11, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hawkins et al. (Pub No US 2023/0306809). Hereinafter, referenced as Hawkins.
Regarding claim 1, Hawkins discloses an electronic gaming system comprising:
a plurality of mechanical reels included in a first display device, the plurality of mechanical reels including a plurality of game symbols (Paragraphs [0037] [0082] figure 1; a plurality of mechanical reels 130 including a plurality of symbols displayed by the plurality of reels);
at least one memory for storing instructions (Paragraph [0052] figure 2; memory 208);
and a game controller (e.g. processor 204) in communication with the at least one memory (e.g. memory 208) and each of the plurality of mechanical reels, the game controller including at least one processor (Paragraph [0051] figure 2), wherein when the instructions are executed by the at least one processor, the at least one processor is configured to:
cause to be displayed on the first display device (e.g. primary game display 240) a base reel game played on the plurality of mechanical reels (Paragraphs [0012] figure 1; base game played by the plurality of mechanical reels and shown in primary game display 240);
randomly generate a base reel game outcome using a single outcome table defining a plurality of outcome scenarios for the plurality of mechanical reels (Paragraphs [0008] [0153] [0154] figure 5C; dynamically associates the lookup table 547 with symbol type to a reel for determining winning symbol combination),
each outcome scenario of the plurality of outcome scenarios including (i) a predetermined reel stop for each of the plurality of mechanical reels (Paragraphs [0059] [0150]; stop position), and (ii) a weighted factor (Paragraph [0159]; lookup table 547 may include an entry for a corresponding weight);
determine that the base reel game (e.g. run based game 550) outcome triggers at least one of: a multiplier feature corresponding to a multiplier feature symbol included in the plurality of game symbols, a bonus hold-and-spin game corresponding to a hold-and-spin feature symbol included in the plurality of game symbols, or a bonus wheel game corresponding to at least one wheel feature symbol included in the plurality of game symbols (Paragraphs [0083] [0177] figure 7; Wheel symbol 742 triggers a wheel bonus feature game);
and cause to be displayed at least one of the triggered multiplier feature, the triggered bonus hold-and-spin game, or the triggered bonus wheel game (Paragraphs [0046] [0048] figures 1 and 2; secondary game display 242 is used for bonus game play).
Regarding claim 2, Hawkins discloses the electronic gaming system of claim 1; moreover, Hawkins discloses that in response to determining that the generated base reel game outcome triggers the multiplier feature corresponding to the multiplier feature symbol, the at least one processor further causes the game controller to: determine the multiplier feature symbol is displayed in a predefined symbol position for the plurality of mechanical reels in the generated base reel game outcome (Paragraphs [0114] [0130]; Multipliers can also appear as symbols in reels).
Regarding claim 8, Hawkins discloses the electronic gaming system of claim 1; moreover, Hawkins discloses that in response to determining that the generated base reel game outcome triggers the bonus wheel game corresponding to the at least one wheel feature symbol (e.g. bonus wheel game 742) the at least one processor further causes the game controller to: determine a plurality of wheel feature symbols are displayed in the plurality of mechanical reels in the generated base reel game outcome (Paragraphs [0177] [0179] figures 6 and 7; bonus wheel game 742 symbol).
Regarding claims 10, 11 and 17, Hawkins discloses all the limitations of claims 10, 11 and 17; therefore, claims 10, 11 and 17 are rejected for the same reasons stated in claims 1, 2 and 8, respectively.
Regarding claims 19-20, Hawkins discloses all the limitations of claims 19-20, therefore, claims 19-20 are rejected for the same reasons stated in claims 1 and 2, respectively.
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.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins in view of Sidoti et al. (Pub No US 2021/0217276). Hereinafter, referenced as Sidoti.
Regarding claim 4, Hawkins discloses the electronic gaming system of claim 1; however, it is noted that Hawkins is silent to explicitly disclose that in response to determining that the generated base reel game outcome triggers the bonus hold-and-spin game corresponding to the hold-and-spin feature symbol, the at least one processor further causes the game controller to:-2-determine the hold-and-spin feature symbol is displayed in the plurality of mechanical reels of the generated base reel game outcome.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Sidoti discloses that in response to determining that the generated base reel game outcome triggers the bonus hold-and-spin game corresponding to the hold-and-spin feature symbol, the at least one processor further causes the game controller to: determine the hold-and-spin feature symbol is displayed in the plurality of mechanical reels of the generated base reel game outcome (Paragraphs [0027] [0093] [0094] figures 12 and 14; hold and spin feature game).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hawkins by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Sidoti, for the predictable result of intuitively presenting the bonus game to the user in a seamless and efficient manner without additional user interactions.
Regarding claim 13, Hawkins and Sidoti disclose all the limitations of claim 13; therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 4.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins in view of Beria et al. (Pub No US 2020/0402350). Hereinafter, referenced as Beria.
Regarding claim 9, Hawkins discloses the electronic gaming system of claim 8; moreover, Hawkins discloses that in response to causing to be displayed on the second display device the triggered, bonus wheel game (Paragraphs [0177] [0179] figures 6 and 7; bonus wheel game 742 symbol), the at least one processor further causes the game controller to: cause to be displayed on the second display device a bonus wheel of the bonus wheel game, the bonus wheel including a plurality of wedges (Paragraphs [0041] [0046] figure 1; bonus wheel game on secondary screen).
However, it is noted that Hawkins is silent to explicitly disclose that each of the plurality of wedges includes at least one credit value, at least one jackpot bonus symbol corresponding to a jackpot credit value, or a distinct, hold-and-spin feature symbol corresponding to the bonus hold-and-spin game.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Beria discloses that each of the plurality of wedges includes at least one credit value, at least one jackpot bonus symbol corresponding to a jackpot credit value, or a distinct, hold-and-spin feature symbol corresponding to the bonus hold-and-spin game (Paragraphs [0130] figure 21A-F; wheel game with each wedge setting an indicia representing a plurality of prize symbols).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hawkins by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Beria, for the predictable result of providing prizes during the game feature and increasing the player’s interest in playing the game.
Regarding claim 18, Hawkins and Beria disclose all the limitations of claim 18; therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUNIOR O MENDOZA whose telephone number is (571)270-3573. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6pm 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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
JUNIOR O. MENDOZA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/JUNIOR O MENDOZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights