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 – 20 are directed towards a system, a medium, and a device, (machine), which is a statutory category 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 gaming system comprising: a memory; and a processor configured to execute instructions stored on the memory, which, when executed, cause the processor to at least: activate a reel expansion feature involving a mechanical reel, the mechanical reel including a plurality of symbols; determine a preliminary stop position for the mechanical reel from a first plurality of stop positions, wherein, in each stop position of the first plurality of stop positions, a first number of complete symbol positions are visible within a visible portion of the mechanical reel; increment the preliminary stop position to an offset stop position, the offset stop position causing the presentation of a second number of complete symbol positions within the visible portion of the mechanical reel; and control the mechanical reel to stop at the offset stop position.
The abstract idea is defined by the underlined portions exemplary claim 1, with substantially similar features found in claims 12 and 17. Dependent claims 2 – 11, 13 - 16, and 18 - 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:
Mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment)
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 comprising a set of reels and gaming symbols, wherein the claims further disclose activating a reel expansion feature comprising a mechanical reel, and causing the mechanical reel to stop at an offset stop position. The claimed invention can be practically performed as a mental process by a human managing a game comprising reels and symbols. 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 comprising a plurality of symbols and a mechanical reel, wherein the claims further disclose activating a reel expansion feature involving the mechanical reel, determining a preliminary stop position for the mechanical reel, incrementing the preliminary stop position to an offset stop position, and controlling the mechanical reel to stop at the offset stop position. The claims recite instructions with these features. Here, a human can observe the displaying of the plurality of symbols, the activation of the reel expansion feature corresponding to the mechanical reel, and the preliminary and offset stop position of the mechanical reel and the symbols, wherein a human can make determine a state of the game based on stop position. For example, in the event that user is playing a slot machine game, a human can observe the spinning and stopping of the reels, a trigger event which triggers a bonus game, (reel expansion feature), and then determine if the stopping of reels is a winning or losing outcome based on the stop position. 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).
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 and memory along with instructions that generates and presents a plurality of symbols and a mechanical reel to a user, 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 affect 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 a processor, memory, a plurality of symbols and a mechanical reel, however, viewed as a whole, these additional elements are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art, (See Glasson (U.S. 6,290,600 col. 1, lines 11 - 15 regarding gaming systems comprising symbols and mechanical reels 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.
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 1, 2, 5 – 13, and 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (U.S. 2013/0065663) in view of Rasmussen et al. (U.S. 8,277,304).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 17, Johnson discloses a gaming system, medium, and device, (“The invention relates to gaming systems and gaming machines”, par. 0002), comprising a memory, (“random access memory 206 and nonvolatile memory or storage device”, par. 0059), and a processor configured to execute instructions stored on the memory, (“CPU 205 executes software which ultimately controls the entire gaming machine including the receipt of player inputs and the presentation of the graphic symbols displayed according to the invention through the display devices”, par. 0063), activate a reel expansion feature involving a mechanical reel, the mechanical reel including a plurality of symbols, (“a purely mechanical arrangement for displaying the symbols needed to complete the Thundering Herd expanding reel game as described herein”, par. 0065, wherein the Examiner views the expanding reel game being purely mechanical as being equivalent to activating a reel expansion feature involving a mechanical reel), and control the mechanical reel to stop at a stop position, (“After the reels stop expanding, they come to a stop in step 2208. It is then determined that the result includes a free spin bonus round, triggered by a scatter pattern of expanding reels symbols”, par. 0047).
Johnson, however, is silent on disclosing a preliminary and offset stop positions. In a related art, Rasmussen discloses a gaming system comprising reels and symbols, (“FIG. 1 illustrates an embodiment of gaming machine having spinning reels on which symbols are arranged on the perimeter of the spinning reels for game play”, col. 1, lines 47 – 49), wherein Rasmussen further discloses a mechanical reel, (fig. 3a), determining a preliminary stop position for the mechanical reel from a first plurality of stop positions, wherein, in each stop position of the first plurality of stop positions, a first number of complete symbol positions are visible within a visible portion of the mechanical reel (“FIG. 6 illustrates an embodiment of reel 310 of FIGS. 3A, 3B mounted in a gaming machine 302 where the home position of reel 310 is misaligned with a pay line 320 of gaming machine 302. Unlike the situation of FIG. 4, reel strip 328 is in registration with reel 310. Pay line 320 is mounted on a reel glass 322 of gaming machine 302. Reel glass 322 permits the viewing of reel symbols imprinted on the front of reel strip 328 during game play. Gaming machine 302 is configured to adjust the alignment of the home position of reel 310 to pay line 320”, col. 6, line 62 – col. 7, line 4, a first number of complete symbol positions are visible within a visible portion of the mechanical reel, wherein the Examiner views the position of the reel being misaligned prior to being adjusted as being equivalent to determining a preliminary stop position for the mechanical reel from a first plurality of stop positions, and the reel glass permitting view of the reel symbols as being equivalent a first number of complete symbol positions being visible), increment the preliminary stop position to an offset stop position, the offset stop position causing the presentation of a second number of complete symbol positions within the visible portion of the mechanical reel; and control the mechanical reel to stop at the offset stop position, (“FIGS. 6 and 7 demonstrate an embodiment in which reel 310 is angularly adjusted in small increments to provide the desired alignment. In an embodiment, reel motor 335 may change the position of reel 310 to one or more positions such that reel 310 moves a distance less than a length of a display symbol on reel 310”, col. 7, lines 28 - 30 and “Gaming machine 200 may be configured such that the information regarding the number of increments used in an alignment method may be used to offset the actual displayed position during game play”, col. 4, lines 53 – 56, wherein the Examiner views the reel being adjusted in small increments to provide the desired alignment wherein the number of increments may be used to offset a displayed position as being equivalent to incrementing a preliminary stop position to an offset position, and controlling the mechanical to stop at said offset position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to combine the preliminary and offset stop positions of Rasmussen into the art disclosed by Johnson in order to overcome gaming machine problems such as dimensional tolerance, manufacturing variations, and assembly errors, (as disclosed by Rasmussen, col. 1, lines 22 – 25), by providing precision alignment and mechanical calibration.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Johnson, as stated above, discloses a gaming system with a mechanical reel, but is silent on disclosing a stepper motor. In a related art, Rasmussen, as stated above, discloses a gaming system with a mechanical reel, wherein Rasmussen further discloses a stepper motor configured to spin the mechanical reel, wherein the instructions cause the processor to control the mechanical reel to stop at the offset stop position by controlling the stepper motor to spin the mechanical reel and stop the mechanical reel at the offset stop position, (“In an embodiment, reel motor 335 is a stepping motor that provides a number of positions to move reel 310. In an embodiment, reel motor is a stepping motor that provides 200 steps or increments, or 400 half-step increments, for one revolution of reel 310. In an embodiment in which the number of reel symbols on a reel strip is small compared to the number of increments provided by reel motor 335, reel motor 335 provides a means for "fine tuning" the alignment of the home position of reel 310 with a target position of the gaming machine in which reel 310 is implemented”, col. 5, lines 14 – 24, wherein the Examiner views the stepping motor fine tuning the alignment to a target position as being equivalent to a stepper motor configured to spin the mechanical reel, wherein the instructions cause the processor to control the mechanical reel to stop at the offset stop position by controlling the stepper motor to spin the mechanical reel and stop the mechanical reel at the offset stop position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the stepping motor of Rasmussen into the art disclosed by Johnson in order to provide precise control and increased reliability by allowing the gaming machine’s software to control exact position of the reel, ensuring that it stops perfectly on the intended symbol.
Regarding claims 5 and 20, Johnson discloses wherein the second number of complete symbol positions including an additional complete symbol position, relative to the first number of complete symbol positions, (“While the reels are still spinning, the mystery feature adds a row 1102, as depicted in FIG. 1E, thereby expanding the matrix of symbol locations and the number of paylines which may be formed through the matrix”, par. 0025, wherein the Examiner views adding of a row and the expanding of matrix symbol locations as being equivalent to a second number of complete symbol positions relative to a first number of complete symbol positions).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Johnson discloses wherein the instructions further cause the processor to determine to activate the reel expansion feature based on an output of a random number generator, (“The mystery expansion feature adds one or more rows to the matrix of symbol locations 1002 based on a mystery, or random and unseen, determination made by the game logic”, par. 0025).
Regarding claim 7, Johnson, as stated above, a gaming system with a mechanical reel, but is silent on disclosing a stop position symbol of the mechanical reel being aligned with a centerline of the visible portion when stopped in the offset position. In a related art, Rasmussen discloses a gaming system a symbol of the mechanical reel is aligned with a centerline of the visible portion, and wherein, when stopped in the offset stop position, symbols of the mechanical reel are offset by a half position relative to the centerline, (“In an embodiment, the home position of reel 310 is positioned such that during game play, the center of a reel symbol aligns with the pay line of the gaming machine using reel 310” and “Gaming machine 200 may be configured such that the information regarding the number of increments used in an alignment method may be used to offset the actual displayed position during game play”, col. 4, lines 53 – 56, wherein the Examiner views the home position of the reel being positioned in the center aligning with a payline as being equivalent to a mechanical reel being aligned with a centerline of a visible portion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the art of Rasmussen into the art disclosed by Johnson in order to provide precise control and increased reliability by allowing the gaming machine’s software to control exact position of the reel, ensuring that it stops perfectly on the intended symbol.
Regarding claim 8, Johnson, as stated above, is silent on disclosing an offset stop position, in a related art, however, Rasmussen discloses an offset stop position is offset by a half step between a first stop position and a second stop position of the first plurality of stop positions, (“ In an embodiment, reel motor is a stepping motor that provides 200 steps or increments, or 400 half-step increments, for one revolution of reel 310”, col. 5, lines 16 – 18, wherein the Examiner views the half-step increments as being equivalent to an offset stop position comprising a half step).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the art of Rasmussen into the art disclosed by Johnson in order to provide precise control and increased reliability by allowing the gaming machine’s software to control exact position of the reel, ensuring that it stops perfectly on the intended symbol.
Regarding claim 9, Johnson discloses a backlight configured to illuminate at least a portion of the mechanical reel when the mechanical reel is stopped, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to control, in response to activating the reel expansion feature, the backlight to illuminate the second number of complete symbol positions, (“providing an animation showing the symbol array expanding with graphics related to the game theme”, par. 0036, wherein the Examiner views providing an animation of the expanding feature with graphics as meeting the claim limitation of a backlight configured to illuminate at least a portion of the mechanical reel).
Regarding claim 10, Johnson, as stated above, discloses a gaming system with a mechanical reel and backlight configured to illuminate at least a portion of the mechanical reel, (“providing an animation showing the symbol array expanding with graphics related to the game theme”, par. 0036, wherein the Examiner views providing an animation of the expanding feature with graphics as meeting the claim limitation of a backlight configured to illuminate at least a portion of the mechanical reel), and activating for a second spin of the mechanical reel for a second play instance, (“The expanding reel sequence will include a data structure storing variables indicating the wager value, any mystery expansions, any bonus free spin rounds and their associated expansions, and the symbols to fill in the matrix of symbol locations for each spin included in the game result”, wherein the Examiner views the bonus free spin rounds as being equivalent to multiple spins of the mechanical reel), but is silent on the issue of disclosing a stepper motor. In a related art, however, Rasmussen, as stated above, discloses a gaming system with a mechanical reel, wherein Rasmussen further discloses a stepper motor configured to initiate a first spin of the mechanical reel for a first play instance; control the stepper motor to stop the mechanical reel at first stop position of the first plurality of stop positions, causing the presentation of the first number of complete symbol positions within the visible portion of the mechanical reel, (“FIG. 6 illustrates an embodiment of reel 310 of FIGS. 3A, 3B mounted in a gaming machine 302 where the home position of reel 310 is misaligned with a pay line 320 of gaming machine 302. Unlike the situation of FIG. 4, reel strip 328 is in registration with reel 310. Pay line 320 is mounted on a reel glass 322 of gaming machine 302. Reel glass 322 permits the viewing of reel symbols imprinted on the front of reel strip 328 during game play. Gaming machine 302 is configured to adjust the alignment of the home position of reel 310 to pay line 320”, col. 6, line 62 – col. 7, line 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to combine the preliminary and offset stop positions of Rasmussen into the art disclosed by Johnson in order to overcome gaming machine problems such as dimensional tolerance, manufacturing variations, and assembly errors, (as disclosed by Rasmussen, col. 1, lines 22 – 25), by providing precision alignment and mechanical calibration.
Regarding claim 11, Johnson discloses comprising a plurality of mechanical reels including the mechanical reel, each mechanical reel of the plurality of mechanical reels including a corresponding plurality of symbols, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: control an additional mechanical reel of the plurality of mechanical reels to stop at one of the first plurality of stop positions such that the first number of complete symbol positions are visible within a visible portion of the additional mechanical reel, (“a purely mechanical arrangement for displaying the symbols needed to complete the Thundering Herd expanding reel game as described herein. However, the most preferred forms of the invention utilize one or more video display devices for displaying the spinning reels, the mystery expansion feature, and the expanded array bonus features. For example, a gaming machine suitable for providing a Thundering Herd expanding reel game may include a mechanical reel-type display rather than a video-type display device for displaying results in a primary game, and include a video display device for presenting the expanding reels separately”, par. 0065).
Claims 3, 4, 14, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (U.S. 2013/0065663) in view of Rasmussen (U.S. 8,277,304) as applied to claims 1, 12, and 17 above, and further in view of Rothschild (U.S. 2007/0167218).
Regarding claims 3, 14, and 18, Johnson and Rasmussen, as stated above, together discloses a gaming system with a mechanical reel, a stepper motor, and an offset stop position, but both Johnson and Rasmussen are silent on disclosing performing a lookup of a stepper motor using a random number generator. In a related art, Rothschild discloses a gaming system, (“Turning to FIG. 1, a typical gaming machine 20 used by gaming establishments is illustrated”, par. 0027), comprising mechanical reels, (“For example, the gaming machine shown in FIG. 1 is an electromechanical gaming machine 21 with mechanical reels 26 to display slot-type wagering games”, par. 0027), wherein Rothschild further discloses generating a first random number generator (RNG) outcome for the mechanical reel; perform a lookup of a stepper motor stop position table using the first RNG outcome to identify the preliminary stop position; and determine to stop the stepper motor based on the lookup, (“At least one random number is associated with each possible stop position on the reels. The random number generated is used to look up the corresponding reel stop position in the probability table. In an electromechanical gaming machine 21, the CPU 18 commands the stepper motors 25 that drive each of the reels to stop at the appropriate stop position”, par. 0039), wherein the Examiner views this in combination with Johnson and Rasmussen as meeting the claim limitation of generating a first random number generator (RNG) outcome for the mechanical reel; perform a lookup of a stepper motor stop position table using the first RNG outcome to identify the preliminary stop position; and determine to stop the stepper motor at an offset stop position based on the lookup.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the random number generator lookup teachings of Rothschild into the art disclosed by Johnson and Rasmussen in order to provide true randomness and game integrity by providing dynamic reel behavior.
Regarding claims 4, 15, and 19, Johnson and Rasmussen, as stated above, together discloses a gaming system with a mechanical reel, a stepper motor, and an offset stop position, but both Johnson and Rasmussen are silent on disclosing performing a lookup of a stepper motor using a random number generator. In a related art, Rothschild discloses a gaming system, (“Turning to FIG. 1, a typical gaming machine 20 used by gaming establishments is illustrated”, par. 0027), comprising mechanical reels, (“For example, the gaming machine shown in FIG. 1 is an electromechanical gaming machine 21 with mechanical reels 26 to display slot-type wagering games”, par. 0027), wherein Rothschild further discloses wherein the stepper motor stop position table defines a plurality of potential stop positions, the first plurality of stop positions and the offset stop position each being a subset of the plurality of potential stop positions, (“The CPU 18 uses a random number generator with a probability table to select a game outcome (e.g., a "base" game outcome). This game outcome corresponds to a particular set of discrete reel "stop positions." At least one random number is associated with each possible stop position on the reels. The random number generated is used to look up the corresponding reel stop position in the probability table. In an electromechanical gaming machine 21, the CPU 18 commands the stepper motors 25 that drive each of the reels to stop at the appropriate stop position”, par. 0039, wherein the Examiner views the gaming system using a RNG with a probability table corresponding to reel outcomes, while using a stepper motor to stop at the appropriate position as being equivalent to a stepper motor stop position table defining a plurality of potential stop positions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the random number generator lookup teachings of Rothschild into the art disclosed by Johnson and Rasmussen in order to provide true randomness and game integrity by providing dynamic reel behavior.
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