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 it is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter
3. Step 2A:
4. 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 a series of game rules, which is an abstract idea under the category of “methods of organizing human activity” (See In re Smith, which states “describing a set of rules for a game, are drawn to an abstract idea.”).
5. The claim language presents a reel-based game machine wherein a base set of reels are spun to determine an outcome and, wherein based on said outcome, a first feature game and/or a second feature game can be played. However, such is reflective of a series of rules of a game that is played on a generic game machine wherein said game machine is used as a tool for performing the game. Here, limitations including a “number of defined triggering symbols”, “awarding a feature game,” information regarding the holding and spinning reels, information regarding triggering symbols and the triggering conditions, and other limitations define parts of said game, and thus further define the rules of the game. Because rules of a game are considered a method of organizing human activity, the claims are therefore considered an abstract idea.
The second prong of Step 2A, ask whether the claims recite additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Here, no such practical application exists. As stated above, the claims recite a game rules for a multi stage game including a base game and secondary games. However, such are merely reflective of a game do not address a problem longstanding in computer history, and thus lack practical application. Additionally, there is no practical application as there is no particular machine that is used to implement the claim language, but instead and as will be discussed below only generic computers are used to perform the invention. Also, there is no transformation of the machine used in the application into a different state or thing. Lastly, the claims do not attempt to apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond simply using the claimed machine.
7. Step 2B asks whether a claimed invention which fails Step 2A contains an inventive concept, i.e. significantly more. Here the invention does not recite significantly more than a generic computer in the form of memory, a display, a random number generator, and a processor. However, Examiner takes Official Notice that all are well-known and understood within the art. Examiner does not consider the various aspects of the game, as part of the inventive concept, as they are purely rules for performing the game and does not present new slot machine gaming technology. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea that lacks significantly more and thus is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10, 13-17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marks (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0051097).
Reclaims 1, 13, and 20: Marks discloses a gaming device comprising:
an electronic display (see paragraph [0051]);
a random number generator (see paragraph [0065]);
a processor (see paragraph [0065]); and
memory storing (i) symbol data defining a first set of reel strips, and trigger symbols including a plurality of first trigger symbols and at least one second trigger symbol (see paragraph [0156]), and (ii) instructions which when executed by the processor (see paragraph [0077-0079]), cause the processor to:
control the display to display a plurality of columns of symbol positions for which symbols will be selected in at least a base game (see paragraph [0078-0079]);
select from the first set of reel strips, using the random number generator, symbols for each of the symbol positions (see paragraph [0079-0079]);
upon the selected symbols including at least a defined number of trigger symbols, award a first feature game (see paragraph [0086-0088, 0127]: a hold & spin first feature game is initiated when six configurable symbols appear on the base game);
upon the at least a defined number of trigger symbols including the second trigger symbol, additionally award a second feature game (see paragraph [0156]);
and conduct each awarded feature game (see Abstract).
Re claims 2 and 14: Marks discloses with respect to the gaming device as claimed in claim 1, where when the instructions are executed by the processor, they cause the processor to conduct the second feature game after the first feature game (see paragraph [0124-0125]: “Alternatively, in some embodiments, the value of one or more of the mystery symbol(s) may not be determined and revealed until the feature game is completed.
In some embodiments, the value of the mystery symbol may be determined using a first valuation game, which may, for example, be in the form of a first spinning wheel game.”).
Re claim 3 and 15: Marks discloses with respect to the gaming device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first feature game is a hold and spin feature game, the symbol data comprises a second set of reel strips, and when the instructions are executed by the processor, they cause the processor to:
hold each trigger symbol selected in the base game for the hold and spin game (see paragraph [0134]);
conduct game instances of the first feature game until an end condition is met (see paragraph [0134]: the first feature game, i.e. Hold & Spin, is played until the player is out of free spins); and
conduct each game instance of the hold and spin game by selecting a symbol for each symbol position not occupied by a held symbol from the second set of reel strips, and holding each selected symbol meeting a hold criterion for any subsequent game instance (see Abstract: “Any additional configurable symbols are retained on the display during subsequent spins until the feature game is completed.”).
Re claim 4 and 16: Marks discloses with respect to the gaming device as claimed in claim 3, wherein each first trigger symbol is a prize symbol, and a hold criterion is that a selected symbol is a prize symbol, and wherein when the instructions are executed by the processor, they cause the processor to make an award based on the prize symbols displayed at the conclusion of the first feature game (see Abstract: “At the end of the feature game, the player is awarded a prize based on the values carried by the configurable symbols.”).
Re claim 5: Marks discloses with respect to the gaming device as claimed in claim 3, wherein upon the second feature game not being awarded during the base game, when the instructions are executed by the processor, they:
cause the processor to configure the second set of second reel strips to enable the second trigger symbol to be selected during the first feature game (see paragraph [0030, 0136]); and
upon the second trigger symbol being selected during the first feature game, award the second feature game (see paragraph [0030, 0136]: the mystery box symbol can appear at anytime during gameplay, including during the first feature game, wherein afterwards a mystery box second game is provided).
Re claims 10 and 17: Marks discloses with respect to the gaming device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first and second feature games are each hold and spin games, and wherein when the instructions are executed by the processor, they cause the processor to make a same award upon all of the symbol positions being occupied by prize symbols, during, or at the conclusion of at least one of the first and second feature game. (see paragraph [0139, 0161]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marks in view of Marks (U.S. PGPUB 2020/0074814 herein known as ‘814).
Re claim 6: Marks fails to disclose with respect the gaming device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the second feature game comprises another hold and spin feature game wherein no symbols are held from the base game or the first feature game, the symbol data comprises a third set of reel strips and wherein when the instructions are executed by the processor, they cause the processor to:
conduct a configured number of game instances; and conduct each game instance of the hold and spin game by selecting a symbol for each symbol position not occupied by a held symbol from the third set of reel strips, and holding each selected symbol meeting a hold criterion for any subsequent game instance.
However, ‘814 teaches a first and second feature game wherein both are hold & spin games, i.e. a third set of reels, for practicing the same set of rules outlined in the claim (see paragraph [0041]). Because Kendall teaches that the second feature game can be displayed using a variety of mechanisms, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to simply substitute the second feature game of Marks with a hold & spin game as taught by ‘814, as such would have yielded the predictable results of a second hold & spin feature game.
Claim(s) 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marks in view of Marks (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0304565 herein known as ‘565).
Re claims 11 and 18: Marks fails to disclose with respect to the gaming device as claimed in claim 1, wherein, when the instructions are executed by the processor, they cause the processor to award the second feature game independently of the first feature game in response to a defined combination of symbols being selected in the base game. However, ‘565 discloses a similar game arrangement including a reel base game, a feature game, and an enhanced feature game, in which both feature games and enhanced feature games are granted based upon a defined combination achieved in the base game (see paragraph [0097]: “In some embodiments, different configurations of configurable symbols, or a different number of displayed configurable symbols may directly trigger an enhanced feature game, as opposed to a standard feature game;” [0131]: “In certain embodiments where the feature game trigger condition includes a symbol or symbol combination, in a base game outcome, the enhanced feature game may be triggered after a second random determination is made to trigger the enhanced feature game. The second random determination may only be made after the first trigger condition is satisfied (trigger symbol or symbol combination in the base game outcome)).” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify the game of Marks with the enhanced triggering event of ‘565 for the purpose of making the goal of achieving the second feature game even more rare, and thus increasing the excitement of when the second feature game occurs.
Claim(s) 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marks.
Re claims 12 and 19: Marks fails to specifically disclose with respect to the gaming device as claimed in claim 2, wherein, when the instructions are executed, they cause the processor to control the display to display a total win meter having a value for the first feature game derived from award amounts in the first feature game, and having an updated value at the conclusion of the second feature game derived from award amounts in the first feature game and second feature game. However, Marks teaches a total win meter that is increased to the value won in the first feature, but not the value won in the second feature. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the game of Marks by increasing the win meter after both a first and second featured game, for the purpose of displaying to the player how much they have won from said games, before the winning credits are transferred to the credit meter (see paragraph [0106-0107]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 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, as well overcoming the 101 rejection as well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD A RENWICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
REGINALD A. RENWICK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3714
/REGINALD A RENWICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights