Patent Drafting Analysis of Aristocrat Technologies’ Automated Grouping System for Merge and Match Game Mechanic | US 2024/0278125 A1
Patent Drafting Analysis of Aristocrat Technologies' Automated Grouping System for Merge and Match Game Mechanic | US 2024/0278125 A1
A structural and strategic analysis of US 2024/0278125 A1 covering claim architecture, drafting quality, critical gaps, and prosecution positioning for Aristocrat Technologies' merge magnet automated grouping tool invention.
Spec Words
9,200
Across 6 sections
Draft now ↗
Total Claims
20
3 independent · 17 dependent
Draft now ↗
Figure Sheets
19
Game UI screens, system architecture, magnet symbols, toolbox menus, algorithm flow
Draft now ↗
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · · 12 min read Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Overview
Structural Overview
The detailed description dominates at approximately 49% of total estimated words (~5,800 of ~12,070), with the claims section representing a substantial ~22% (~2,600 words), reflecting the tripartite system/method/CRM claim structure and numerous dependents. The patent includes 20 claims total — 3 independent and 17 dependent — providing system, method, and computer-readable storage media coverage. The 19 figure sheets are heavily weighted toward UI screenshots (FIGS. 2–14) demonstrating the merge magnet mechanic in action, with FIG. 1 covering system architecture and FIG. 19 providing an algorithm flow diagram.
Section Word Distribution
↗ Click bars to exploreFigure Inventory — 19 Sheets
| Figure | Description | Role |
|---|---|---|
| FIG. 1 | System architecture diagram showing content server(s) 108 with processor(s) 118, memory 120 housing game play module 122, game management module 124, and game enhancement module 126, networked to user device(s) 104.Search in Eureka ↗ | System architecture |
| FIG. 2 | Game display 200 showing game board tiles 202 with game items 204, toolbox menu 210 with base magnet symbol 206 and maximum magnet symbol 208, and orders panel 212.Search in Eureka ↗ | UI/interface |
| FIG. 3 | Game display 200 showing base magnet symbol 206 being activated, with transparent (ineligible) game items 204 of different types highlighted and the grouping selection in progress.Search in Eureka ↗ | UI/interface |
| FIG. 4 | Game display 200 showing the result of activating base magnet symbol 206 — four same-type game items 204 moved to adjacent target game board tiles 202 around the selected item.Search in Eureka ↗ | Claim support |
| FIG. 5 | Game display 200 showing the toolbox menu 210 with a cooldown timer beneath base magnet symbol 206, indicating the time remaining before the base magnet can be used again.Search in Eureka ↗ | Claim support |
| FIG. 6 | Game display 200 showing maximum magnet symbol 208 being dragged over a target stack-of-logs game item 204, causing all same-type game items to begin grouping toward adjacent tiles 202.Search in Eureka ↗ | UI/interface |
| FIG. 7 | Game display 200 showing all stack-of-logs game items 204 moved to adjacent game board tiles 202 after maximum magnet symbol 208 activation, demonstrating the full grouping effect.Search in Eureka ↗ | Claim support |
| FIG. 8 | Game display 200 showing the toolbox menu 210 with cooldown timers on both base magnet symbol 206 and maximum magnet symbol 208 after use, with order panel 212 showing updated counts.Search in Eureka ↗ | Claim support |
| FIG. 9 | Game display 200 showing three infinite magnet symbols 900 on game board tiles 202 with their respective time periods (five minutes, thirty minutes, one hour) displayed as icons.Search in Eureka ↗ | Claim support |
| FIG. 10 | Game display 200 showing confirmation prompt 1000 asking the user "Want to use the Infinite Magnet?" with Cancel and Yes buttons before activating infinite magnet symbol 900.Search in Eureka ↗ | UI/interface |
| FIG. 11 | Game display 200 showing infinite magnet symbol 900 active with base magnet 206 and maximum magnet 208 modified to show infinity icons and countdown timers in toolbox menu 210.Search in Eureka ↗ | UI/interface |
| FIG. 12 | Game display 200 showing message 1200 "Infinite Magnet is already active" when a second infinite magnet symbol 900 is selected while a first is still active, indicating single-activation limit.Search in Eureka ↗ | UI/interface |
| FIG. 13 | Help screen 1300 showing tutorial instructions for base magnet symbol 206, explaining "Drag this Magnet Over an object and release to pull in up to 4 other identical objects!"Search in Eureka ↗ | UI/interface |
| FIG. 14 | Help screen 1400 showing tutorial instructions for maximum magnet symbol 208, explaining "Drag and release this Magnet over an object to group every identical object!"Search in Eureka ↗ | UI/interface |
| FIG. 15A | Detailed rendering of base magnet symbol 206 shown as a U-shaped magnet icon used in the game interface to represent the predefined-number grouping tool.Search in Eureka ↗ | UI/interface |
| FIG. 15B | Detailed rendering of maximum magnet symbol 208 shown as a larger double-pole magnet icon representing the all-same-type grouping tool in the game interface.Search in Eureka ↗ | UI/interface |
| FIG. 15C | Detailed rendering of infinite magnet symbol 900 shown as a magnet icon with an infinity badge, representing the time-limited tool that disables cooldowns for base and maximum magnets.Search in Eureka ↗ | UI/interface |
| FIG. 16 | Toolbox menu 210 showing base magnet symbol 206 and maximum magnet symbol 208 in their unmodified state (no cooldown active), alongside the Toolbox 212 and Market buttons.Search in Eureka ↗ | UI/interface |
| FIG. 17 | Toolbox menu 210 showing base magnet symbol 206 with 1m29s cooldown timer and maximum magnet symbol 208 with 59m55s cooldown timer after use, illustrating the differential cooldown periods.Search in Eureka ↗ | Claim support |
| FIG. 18 | Toolbox menu 210 showing base magnet symbol 206 and maximum magnet symbol 208 both modified with infinity icons and 4m47s timers while infinite magnet symbol 900 is active.Search in Eureka ↗ | Claim support |
| FIG. 19 | Flow diagram 1900 illustrating the algorithm for controlling game display 200 across Steps A–D, showing game board tiles 202, target game item 204 (x-type), attachable pieces (x), other pieces (y), and non-movable tiles movement logic.Search in Eureka ↗ | Flow diagram |
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka. Patent text and figures publicly available from USPTO. Draft a Similar Patent
Claims
Claim Architecture Analysis
The patent contains 3 independent claims — Claim 1 (gaming system/apparatus), Claim 10 (method), and Claim 19 (non-transitory computer-readable storage media/CRM) — providing a tripartite enforcement structure covering hardware, process, and software embodiments. The 17 dependent claims yield a 5.67:1 dependent-to-independent ratio, which is within the gaming software norm for A63F-class patents (~4–8:1). The parallel structure across Claim 1 and Claims 10 and 19 is well-executed but the dependent claims (Claims 2–9, 11–18, 20) mirror each other closely across the three independent claims, limiting genuinely distinct fallback coverage.
Core inventive concept: The claims address the user frustration of manually moving multiple game items in a merge-and-match game by providing an automated grouping tool — specifically a "merge magnet" — that, upon receiving a selection of a target game item, automatically identifies a group of same-type items and moves them to "a plurality of target game tiles located adjacent to the target game item," recording updated locations in memory and transmitting updated game data to the user device. The invention further solves memory management issues by clearing cached prior-state data after grouping operations.
Independent Claim Dissection
| Claim | Preamble | Transition | Key Body Elements |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claim 1 | A gaming system comprising a memory and one or more processors in communication with the memory | comprising | store initial locations of game items in memory within game board tiles; transmit game data to user device for UI display; receive selection of target game item using automated grouping tool; identify group of same-type game items; identify plurality of adjacent target game tiles; record updated locations in memory corresponding to adjacent target tiles; transmit further game data to display updated UISearch prior art ↗ |
| Claim 10 | A method for automated grouping in an electronic game performed by a gaming system including a memory and one or more processors in communication with the memory | comprising | storing initial game item locations in memory in game board tiles; causing user device to display UI with game board tiles and game items; receiving target game item selection via automated grouping tool; identifying group of same-type game items; identifying adjacent target game tiles; recording updated locations in memory; causing user device to update UI with game items in updated locationsSearch prior art ↗ |
| Claim 19 | A non-transitory computer-readable storage media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon | wherein when executed | store initial game item locations in memory within game board tiles; transmit game data to user device for UI display; receive target game item selection using automated grouping tool; identify group of same-type game items; identify adjacent target game tiles; record updated locations in memory corresponding to adjacent target game tiles; transmit further game data to display updated UISearch prior art ↗ |
Claim Dependency Tree
1 Gaming system (apparatus): processor-based system storing game item locations, receiving target selection via automated grouping tool, identifying same-type group, recording updated adjacent locationsSearch Claim 1 prior art ↗
2 Adds: clearing initial locations from memory in response to recording updated locationsSearch in Eureka ↗
3 Adds: periodically clearing initial locations from memorySearch in Eureka ↗
4 Adds: disabling automated grouping tool for predefined cooldown period after recording updated locationSearch in Eureka ↗
5 Further: (depends on 4) receiving selection of infinite automated grouping tool; enabling subsequent use without triggering cooldown for predefined time periodSearch in Eureka ↗
6 Adds: group includes predefined number of game items of same item type as targetSearch in Eureka ↗
7 Further: (depends on 6) group includes predefined number of game items closest to target in UISearch in Eureka ↗
8 Adds: group includes each game item of same item type as targetSearch in Eureka ↗
9 Adds: receiving merge instruction; updating memory to replace target with upgraded item; removing adjacent group; transmitting UI update with upgraded itemSearch in Eureka ↗
10 Method: automated grouping steps in electronic game — storing, causing display, receiving selection, identifying group, identifying adjacent tiles, recording updated locations, causing UI updateSearch Claim 10 prior art ↗
11 Adds: clearing initial locations in response to recording updated locationsSearch in Eureka ↗
12 Adds: periodically clearing initial game item locations from memorySearch in Eureka ↗
13 Adds: disabling automated grouping tool for predefined cooldown period after recording updated locationSearch in Eureka ↗
14 Further: (depends on 13) receiving infinite automated grouping tool selection; enabling use without cooldown for predefined time periodSearch in Eureka ↗
15 Adds: group includes predefined number of game items of same item typeSearch in Eureka ↗
16 Further: (depends on 15) predefined number includes items closest to target in UISearch in Eureka ↗
17 Adds: group includes each game item of same item type as targetSearch in Eureka ↗
18 Adds: receiving merge instruction; updating memory with upgraded item; removing adjacent group; causing UI to display upgraded itemSearch in Eureka ↗
19 CRM: computer-executable instructions on non-transitory storage media causing processors to perform the automated grouping operations (store, transmit, receive, identify, record, transmit update)Search Claim 19 prior art ↗
20 Adds: clearing initial locations from memory in response to recording updated locationsSearch in Eureka ↗
| Metric | This Application | Video / Casual Game Software Norm |
|---|---|---|
| Total claims | 20 | 15 – 25 |
| Independent claim count | 3 | 2 – 4 |
| Dependent : Independent ratio | 5.67 : 1 | 4 – 8 : 1 |
| Method claims present? | Yes — Claim 10 | Common |
| System / apparatus claims? | Yes — Claim 1 | Common |
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka. Patent text and figures publicly available from USPTO. Draft a Similar Patent
Drafting Quality
Drafting Quality Signals
The patent exhibits strong tripartite claim architecture — system, method, and CRM claims (Claims 1, 10, 19) provide broad enforcement coverage — and the dependent claims layering cooldown mechanics (Claims 4/13) and infinite magnet override (Claims 5/14) adds meaningful prosecution fallback. However, the claims carry elevated §101 Alice/Mayo exposure because all operative limitations are software-implemented game logic steps tied to generic processor-and-memory hardware, and the specification's technical benefit arguments are embedded in paragraphs [0031]–[0033] but not imported into any independent claim.
✅
Antecedent Basis
Antecedent basis is largely clean across the 20 claims. In Claim 1, "a plurality of game board tiles" is introduced and then properly referenced as "the plurality of game board tiles" in subsequent limitations. "The automated grouping tool" in Claim 1 is properly preceded by its introduction in the "receive" limitation. Claim 5's reference to "the automated grouping tool" has proper antecedent in parent Claim 4. No orphaned "the" references were identified across Claims 1–20.
✅
Spec–Claim Consistency
The specification provides strong written description support for all independent claim limitations. The "automated grouping tool" limitation in Claim 1 maps directly to ¶[0027]–[0029] and is visually demonstrated in FIGS. 3–8. The "identify a plurality of target game tiles located adjacent to the target game item" limitation maps to ¶[0029]–[0030] and FIG. 19 (Steps A–D). The cooldown limitation in Claim 4 is supported by ¶[0056] and FIG. 5/FIG. 17. The infinite magnet override in Claim 5 maps to ¶[0060]–[0063] and FIGS. 9–12.
✅
Transition Word Usage
All three independent claims use "comprising" (Claim 1: "comprising a memory and one or more processors"; Claim 10: "the method comprising"; Claim 19: uses "wherein when executed" which functions as an open transition). The open-ended "comprising" transition is strategically sound for this gaming software context, ensuring that additional system components (e.g., a display, a network interface) do not defeat infringement. No missed opportunity to use "comprising" was identified, and no over-narrowing "consisting of" language appears in the claim set.
⚠️
§112(f) Means-Plus-Function Risk
No explicit "means for" language appears, but Claim 1 uses functional labels without clear structural definition for the "automated grouping tool" — a tool that is never structurally defined in the claims but only functionally (receiving a selection, identifying groups). Under §112(f), an examiner could argue this is a nonce term invoking means-plus-function treatment, which would limit the claim to the specific magnet symbols and algorithm disclosed in FIGS. 3–8 and ¶[0027]–[0030]. A stronger drafting approach would have defined the automated grouping tool structurally (e.g., as a drag-and-release UI element associated with the game management module 124) within at least the independent claims.
⚠️
§101 Eligibility Risk
Claims 1, 10, and 19 face material Alice/Mayo exposure because their operative steps — storing game item locations, identifying same-type groups, recording updated locations — are abstract computational operations directed to organizing data representing game state, and the hardware recited (memory, one or more processors, user device) is entirely generic. While ¶[0031]–[0033] articulate three technical benefits (improved UI, reduced memory overflow, cache management), none of these technical problem-solution pairs are imported into the independent claims as structural limitations. The only potential §101 defense at Claim 1 as written is the "user device" and "game board tiles" recitation, which is weak under the two-step Alice framework without a concrete technical improvement claim element.
⚠️
Dependent Claim Fallback Quality
The dependent claim set mirrors the three independent claims structurally (Claims 2–9 depend from Claim 1; Claims 11–18 from Claim 10; Claim 20 from Claim 19), but only Claim 20 is the sole dependent from Claim 19, leaving Claims 19's cooldown, infinite magnet, and merge instruction embodiments uncovered by dependent fallback at the CRM level. Claims 6 and 7 (and 15 and 16) do provide genuinely distinct fallback between "predefined number" and "closest items" grouping scope. Claim 9 (and 18) add valuable merge-operation coverage. However, Claims 2 and 11 (clearing initial locations) and Claims 3 and 12 (periodic clearing) capture the same technical distinction and contribute no incremental fallback beyond each other.
⚠️
Abstract Quality
The abstract lists seven numbered operational steps of the gaming system but omits the core technical problem and its solution — it does not mention the memory management benefit (cache clearing), the cooldown mechanism, or the "automated grouping tool" by its specific function. An examiner reading only the abstract would understand the basic game mechanics but could miss the novel contribution: the automated grouping mechanism that simultaneously solves user interaction difficulty and memory overflow, which is the distinguishing feature over prior merge-and-match games. The abstract should have been revised to specifically identify the automated grouping tool and its dual benefit.
✅
Figure Support Quality
Figure support is comprehensive and well-matched to the claim scope. The system architecture of Claim 1 (memory, processors, game management module) is shown in FIG. 1. The automated grouping tool operation across Claims 1, 10, and 19 is illustrated step-by-step through FIGS. 2–8. The cooldown limitation (Claim 4/13) is directly supported by FIG. 5, FIG. 8, and FIG. 17. The infinite magnet override (Claims 5/14) maps to FIGS. 9–12. The merge operation (Claims 9/18) is referenced in ¶[0053] and the game board tile adjacency algorithm is visualized in FIG. 19 (Steps A–D), providing the strongest figure support for the updating of locations limitation in all independent claims.
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka. Patent text and figures publicly available from USPTO. Draft a Similar Patent
Scorecard
Strategic Intent Scorecard
Multi-dimensional assessment of this application's patent strategy quality, based on claim structure, specification depth, and prosecution positioning.
Claim Breadth
3.2
Prosecution Defensibility
2.8
Spec–Claim Consistency
4.2
Dependent Claim Coverage
3
Claim Type Diversity
4.5
Figure Support Quality
4.3
Key observation: Claim Type Diversity (Score: 4.5) is the highest-scoring dimension — the tripartite filing of system Claim 1, method Claim 10, and CRM Claim 19 provides enforcement coverage across all practical infringement scenarios in the gaming software space, a sophisticated filing structure for this IPC class. Prosecution Defensibility (Score: 2.8) is the weakest dimension: the independent claims recite only generic hardware (memory, one or more processors) against entirely software-implemented game logic steps, creating high §101 Alice exposure that the specification's technical benefits (¶[0031]–[0033]) do not mitigate because those benefits were not incorporated as structural claim limitations. Practitioners should consider filing a continuation that adds an explicit technical limitation tied to the cache-clearing mechanism or the proximity-based adjacency algorithm of FIG. 19 to create a stronger §101 defense.
See how your own draft compares — Open Eureka IP Drafting →
Critical Gaps
3 Critical Gaps in This Claim Set
A senior-attorney lens on the three highest-priority structural weaknesses — what each exposes in prosecution and litigation, and what a stronger filing would have done differently.
🔒
3 Critical Gaps in This Claim Set
See the full attorney-level analysis of what this application leaves unprotected — and how to draft it more defensively for your own filings.
No §101 technical improvement in independent claims CRM Claim 19 missing cooldown and infinite magnet dependents Automated grouping tool undefined — §112(f) risk
Unlock Full Analysis — Free Frequently asked questions
US 2024/0278125 A1 — key questions answered
Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them from patent data instantly. Search in Eureka
Disclaimer: This analysis is generated by PatSnap Eureka AI based on publicly available patent data from the USPTO. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Patent data may be subject to change as prosecution progresses. Scores and assessments reflect automated analysis and may not capture all relevant legal or technical nuances. Always consult a qualified patent attorney for formal legal opinions on patentability, freedom to operate, or infringement.
Ask anything about this patent.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and data to answer instantly.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard