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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 6443456 B1 to Gajor (hereinafter Gajor) in view of US 20150065227 A1 to Naylor et al. (hereinafter Naylor).
Concerning claim 1,
Gajor discloses platform for providing a poker-slot hybrid game, the platform comprising: a graphical user interface (Figure 7) that:
displays a plurality of spaces arranged in rows and columns, the plurality of spaces forming pathways that include each of the rows and each of the columns (Col 2; ln 66-Col 3; ln 19, Col 5; ln 13-33, Figure 5, Figure 7);
provides functionality for a user to specify a current wager that is subtracted from a pool of available credits of the user (Col 2; ln 66-Col 3; ln 19, Col 5; ln 13-33, Figure 5, Figure 7);
displays a symbol randomly selected from a predetermined set of symbols in each of the spaces (Col 2; ln 66-Col 3; ln 19, Col 5; ln 13-33, Figure 5, Figure 7, One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the cards dealt in stud or draw poker would be randomized); and
provides functionality for the user to identify one or more of the displayed symbols for replacement (Col 2; ln 66-Col 3; ln 19); and
replaces each of the identified symbols with a replacement symbol randomly selected from the predetermined set of symbols (Col 2; ln 66-Col 3; ln 19);
determines whether the displayed symbols along each of the pathways form one or more of a predetermined set of winning combinations, each of the winning combinations being associated with a predetermined prize amount (Col 2; ln 66-Col 3; ln 19, Col 5; ln 13-33, Figure 5, Figure 7);
calculates a total winnings by multiplying the current wager specified by the user by the predetermined prize amount associated with each of the winning combinations formed in each of the pathways (Col 2; ln 66-Col 3; ln 19, Col 5; ln 13-33, Figure 5, Figure 7); and
adds the total winnings to the pool of available credits of the user (Col 2; ln 66-Col 3; ln 19, Col 4; ln 26-33, Col 5; ln 13-33, Figure 5, Figure 7).
Gajor discloses an electronic video gaming machine, but does not explicitly disclose a hardware computer processor.
Naylor teaches a hardware computer processor (0056, Figure 5).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the hardware configuration of Naylor into the electronic video gaming machine of Gajor as both concern games of chance performed on electronic gaming machines. Configuring the hardware of the gaming machine of Gajor (e.g. processor and memory) as shown in Naylor would allow for traditional functionality and computation to be performed.
Concerning claim 2,
Gajor discloses the plurality of spaces are arranged in an equal number of rows and columns, including a top-left space, a top-right space, a bottom-left space, and a bottom-right space (Col 2; ln 66-Col 3; ln 19, Col 5; ln 13-33, Figure 5, Figure 7); and
the pathways further include two diagonal lines from the top-left space to the bottom- right space and from the bottom-left space to the top-right space (Col 2; ln 66-Col 3; ln 19, Col 5; ln 13-33, Figure 5, Figure 7).
Concerning claim 3,
Gajor discloses the predetermined set of symbols depict a predetermined set of playing cards, each of the playing cards having one of a plurality of values in one of four suits (Col 2; ln 66-Col 3; ln 19, Col 5; ln 13-33, Figure 5, Figure 7).
Concerning claim 4,
Gajor discloses the plurality of spaces are arranged in three rows and three columns (Col 2; ln 66-Col 3; ln 19, Col 5; ln 13-33, Figure 5, Figure 7).
Concerning claim 5,
Gajor discloses each winning combination comprises three playing cards having the same value (Col 2; ln 66-Col 3; ln 42, Col 5; ln 13-33, Figure 5, Figure 7).
Gajor discloses winning three card combinations (three of a kind, straight, flush, etc.), but does not limit the winning combinations only to three of a kind. However, it would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to limit the winning combinations to three of a kind. For instance, if an operator intends for the poker cards to serve more of a thematic purpose or if they would like to bring the game to people less skilled in the mechanics of poker, such an adjustment would be useful.
Concerning claim 6,
Gajor discloses the set of winning combinations includes three cards having the same value, three cards having sequential values, or three cards in the same suit (Col 2; ln 66-Col 3; ln 42, Col 5; ln 13-33, Figure 5, Figure 7).
Concerning claim 7,
Gajor discloses the set of winning combinations further includes two cards having the same value (Col 2; ln 66-Col 3; ln 42, Col 5; ln 13-33, Figure 5, Figure 7, wherein both three of a kind and a pair meet the limitation as claimed).
Concerning claim 8,
Gajor discloses each replacement symbol is randomly selected from a set of remaining playing cards formed by removing each of the displayed playing cards (Col 2; ln 66-Col 3; ln 19, Col 5; ln 13-33, Figure 5, Figure 7).
Concerning claims 18-19, see the rejection of claim 1.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 6443456 B1 to Gajor in view of US 20150065227 A1 to Naylor et al. and further in view of US Publication 2010/0105457 A1 to Miller (hereinafter Miller).
Concerning claim 9,
Gajor does not disclose the graphical user interface displays each of the remaining playing cards.
Miller teaches the graphical user interface displays each of the remaining playing cards (0025, 0029, Figure 1).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the graphical elements of Miller into the electronic video gaming machine of Gajor as both concern card games performed on electronic gaming machines. Allowing for the gaming machine of Gajor, which allows for he discarding of playing cards, to display the remaining cards present in the deck as shown in Miller would improve the ease of use of the apparatus.
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 6443456 B1 to Gajor in view of US 20150065227 A1 to Naylor et al. and further in view of US Publication 2002/0055381 A1 to Tarantino (hereinafter Tarantino).
Concerning claim 10,
Gajor does not disclose the predetermined set of symbols comprise depictions of six sides of a die, each of the sides of the die representing a value from 1 to 6.
Tarantino teaches the predetermined set of symbols comprise depictions of six sides of a die, each of the sides of the die representing a value from 1 to 6 (0055, 0093, 0148, Figure 9, Figure 12).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the graphical elements and mechanics of Tarantino into the electronic video gaming machine of Gajor as both concern games of chance performed on electronic gaming machines where the goal is to obtain a desirable sequence of icons. Incorporating the dice and dice related mechanics as taught in Tarantino into the electronic video gaming machine of Gajor would allow for additional thematic variations and varied mechanics, improving the player’s experience.
Concerning claim 11,
Tarantino teaches the hardware computer processor executes instructions such that each of the six depictions of the six sides of the die have an equal probability of being randomly selected (0079, 0093, 0148, Figure 6, Figure 9, Figure 12, A traditional six sided dice has equal chances of being rolled. A random number generator simulating the rolling of a six sided dice would have the same probability).
Concerning claim 12,
Gajor discloses the plurality of spaces are arranged in three rows and three columns (Col 2; ln 66-Col 3; ln 19, Col 4; ln 26-33, Col 5; ln 13-33, Figure 5, Figure 7).
Gajor does not disclose the set of winning combinations comprises three dice representing the same value.
Tarantino teaches the set of winning combinations comprises three dice representing the same value (0055, 0093, Figure 9, Figure 12).
Concerning claim 13,
Tarantino teaches the set of winning combinations further includes three dice representing sequential values (0055, 0093, Figure 9, Figure 12).
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 6443456 B1 to Gajor in view of US 20150065227 A1 to Naylor et al. and further in view of US Publication 2007/0111781 A1 to Moshal (hereinafter Moshal).
Concerning claim 14,
Gajor does not clearly disclose the predetermined set of symbols depict slot machine symbols.
Moshal teaches the predetermined set of symbols depict slot machine symbols (0031-0032, Figure 2-3).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the graphical elements and mechanics of Moshal into the electronic video gaming machine of Gajor as both concern games of chance performed on electronic gaming machines where the goal is to obtain a desirable sequence of icons. Incorporating the slot and slot related mechanics as taught in Moshal into the electronic video gaming machine of Gajor would allow for additional thematic variations and varied mechanics, improving the player’s experience.
Concerning claim 15,
Moshal teaches the hardware computer processor executes instructions such that the slot machine symbols have an unequal probability of being randomly selected (0022, 0030-0032, Figure 2-3, Table 1).
Concerning claim 16,
Moshal teaches the predetermined prize amount associated with each of the winning combinations in inversely proportional to the probability of forming the winning combination (0022, 0030-0032, Figure 2-3, Table 1).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 6443456 B1 to Gajor in view of US 20150065227 A1 to Naylor et al. and further in view of US Publication 2014/0206425 A1 to Rinaldis (hereinafter Rinaldis).
Concerning claim 17,
Gajor does not disclose functionality for the user to mark symbols that are to be replaced; or functionality for the user to mark symbols that are not to be replaced.
Rinaldis teaches functionality for the user to mark symbols that are to be replaced; or functionality for the user to mark symbols that are not to be replaced (0031-0032, Figure 4-5, wherein highlighting is considered to be marking).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the card marking mechanics of Rinaldis into the electronic video gaming machine of Gajor as both card games performed on electronic gaming machines. Incorporating the marking of cards as taught by Rinaldis into the electronic video gaming machine of Gajor would allow for a more intuitive method of retaining and discarding cards, improving the player’s experience.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISHAYU SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-3179. The examiner can normally be reached Flex.
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.
/I.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights