The Money Tree Above the Machines A Multiplayer Slot Feature Built Around Objects That Move Between Two Screens

This application covers a way of running one game across a group of gaming machines by putting a single shared object on a display everyone can see and then physically moving pieces of it, on screen, down into each player’s own machine. The specification’s worked example is a money tree that grows coins, envelopes and fruit above a row of players, with each player holding a bowl on their own screen that fills as things fall into it. Claim 1 is written as a computer readable medium claim, and its distinguishing step is the transition: a communal item leaves the group object, is removed from it, and becomes an individual object attached to one machine, at which point a multiplayer feature is applied to that machine’s game. It was filed by Aristocrat Technologies, Inc., the United States arm of the Australian gaming group, with Alfred Thomas and Joseph Masinter II as inventors.

The Problem

The background section of the specification is the standard Aristocrat framing. Electronic gaming machines offer wagering games of many kinds, a player establishes a credit balance and places a wager on an instance of a base game, and may qualify for a special mode of the base game, a secondary game or a bonus. Nothing in that background is specific to the invention.

The real problem the disclosure is addressing sits in the detailed description, and it is a design problem rather than a technical failing. A bank of slot machines is a row of independent devices. Linking them into a genuine shared experience has historically meant either a progressive meter that ticks up in the background, or an occasional community bonus that interrupts everyone at once. Neither gives a player a reason to look up at a shared screen during ordinary play, and neither makes the shared screen change in response to what any individual player is doing.

The second problem is the shape of the hardware. The specification devotes a large part of its length to what it calls EGM archways: machines arranged in spatially opposing pairs whose curved screens form the lower portion of an arc, with further screens added between them to complete the curve, and machines placed side by side to build ring shaped or tunnel shaped structures. A shared display in that geometry sits above the players and is looked up at, so a game element drawn on it has to be composed differently from one drawn at eye level. A game designed for one bank layout will not simply transfer to another.

What This Invention Does

Claim 1 is the only independent claim in the Australian set, and there are 20 claims in total. It is directed to a computer readable medium containing instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, cause four things to happen.

First, a group metamorphic game element is displayed on a multiplayer game display. That element contains a plurality of communal game elements and is configured to interact with each of the machines in the bank. Second, during a first game play on a first machine, and based on an output of a random number generator at the multiplayer game server, a multiplayer feature is activated. Third, and this is the step the whole claim turns on, the group element transitions one of the communal elements from the multiplayer display to an individual metamorphic game element associated with that first machine, thereby removing the communal element from the group element, while the group element dynamically interacts with the individual element of every machine in the bank. Fourth, based on the transitioned element, the activated multiplayer feature is applied to that machine’s game play.

The specification defines its own vocabulary. A metamorphic game is one where the cumulative result of a series of plays triggers free spins, features or prizes, and where visual changes tell players that a triggering event has not happened yet or is coming soon. Fruit growing on a tree and coins accumulating in a bowl are the examples given. The group element is the tree above the bank, the individual element is the bowl at each station, and the transition is a piece of fruit falling.

Two details are worth flagging because they narrow the claim more than a quick reading suggests. The random number generator that activates the feature has to be at the multiplayer game server. The description also offers an alternative in which an RNG on each player’s own machine performs the transfer, and claim 1 does not cover that arrangement. The other is a drafting quirk. The claim preamble introduces only a computer readable medium, yet the body then refers to “the plurality of electronic gaming machines”, “the multiplayer game” and “the multiplayer game server” as though they had already been recited. Those terms are introduced properly in the corresponding method and system paragraphs of the summary, which were not carried into the Australian claim set.

The dependent claims fill in the game. Claim 6 names the tree explicitly, with coins, envelopes and fruits as the communal elements and the individual element collecting coins over multiple rounds. Claims 7 to 11 cover the visual treatments, including an envelope suspending over a bowl and tilting to release coins or sliding to release a credit award. Claim 12 makes the feature a cascading one in which the bowl explodes, and claim 13 sends some of the released coins across into another player’s bowl. Claims 14 and 15 replace the personal play area with a progressive play area of tokens the player picks to reveal jackpot names, awarding a progressive jackpot when enough names match. Claims 16 to 20 handle the fruit path, including a step where a fruit drops from the bowl onto a specific reel position and replaces the symbol there with a scatter symbol, precisely when one more scatter is needed to trigger a free spins round.

Key Features

• A shared object that loses pieces. The claim does not simply display something communal alongside individual play. It requires the communal item to be removed from the group element when it transfers, so the shared display visibly depletes as players win from it.
• Two screens per player, plus one overhead. In the described arrangement each station has a bottom display carrying the reels and the bowl, a top display carrying a private slice of the tree, and a communal display above the bank carrying the public play area shared by everyone.
• Layout aware composition. Claim 2 lets the display of the group element be adjusted according to the bank configuration, the form factor of the machines, or the number of active players. The description gives the reason: where the public area sits overhead, the tree is drawn bottom to top because players look up at it.
• A tree that grows and withers with the crowd. The public play area can expand into the space above a station when a player starts a session and retract when they leave, so the size of the shared object tracks how many people are actually at the bank.
• Odds that scale with participation. Claim 3 bases activation of the multiplayer feature on the number of active players, and the description gives worked figures of one in four hundred with a single player, one in two hundred with two, and one in one hundred with four.
• Award buckets rather than a single pot. Claims 4 and 5 add a community bonus paying every player, with different amounts drawn from personal, group, common and progressive buckets, the personal bucket reflecting recent bet size and loyalty status and optionally following the player between machines.

Who Is Behind It

The applicant is Aristocrat Technologies, Inc., the United States subsidiary through which the group files much of its machine and platform work, distinct from Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited which is named on most of the reel mechanic filings in the same journal volume. The parent group builds and licenses electronic gaming machines and games worldwide through Aristocrat Gaming.

Alfred Thomas is a long standing name on Aristocrat game design filings, appearing across the company’s feature game portfolio with collaborators including Larry Pacey and Scott Burns. Joseph Masinter II appears alongside him on this family. The pair are named as the inventors on the granted United States member of the family, US 12,266,242, which issued from the application this Australian case traces back to.

The priority position is set out in the specification itself rather than being reconstructed. The application is a divisional of Australian application 2020204401. It also claims priority to two United States provisional applications, 62/913,350 filed 10 October 2019 under the same title as this case, and 62/869,452 filed 1 July 2019 and titled “Electronic Gaming Machine Archways Including Pluralities of Curved Display Devices”, and to United States application 16/896,952 filed 9 June 2020. The second of those provisionals is why so much of this specification is about the physical arc of screens rather than the game, and it makes the United States the priority country.

Why It Matters

Most of what a slot machine patent claims happens inside one cabinet. Symbols land, prices attach to positions, a reel upgrades the next reel. This one claims something that happens between cabinets, and specifically between a display nobody owns and a display one person does. That is a smaller idea than a new game, but it is a more architectural one, because it requires a server that knows the shape of the bank, a shared surface that is addressable as a game object, and a rule for what happens to the shared object when one player takes from it.

The design intent is legible. Watching a communal item leave a shared display and arrive in your own bowl produces a moment of ownership that a background progressive meter cannot. Making the tree grow above a station when someone sits down and wither when they leave turns occupancy into part of the artwork. Scaling the trigger odds with the number of players gives a player at a busy bank a real reason to prefer it, which is the same social logic that keeps craps tables loud. The red envelopes and mandarins in the worked example are aimed squarely at a particular player market, and the specification is explicit that the tree could equally be an underwater scene, a fireworks display, a koi pond or a battleship.

The parts that will attract scrutiny are the ones about differential treatment. The description says award amounts can be dynamically adjusted for certain types of players, that those who bet more can be awarded more, and that a personal award bucket can be tied to a player through the player tracking system and follow them to other machines. None of that is unusual in the industry, and the group publishes its position on responsible gameplay, but a mechanic that visibly rewards higher betting in front of a shared audience is a different proposition from one that does so privately, and regulators in different jurisdictions take different views of it.

Whether any of this reaches a floor in the archway form the specification describes is a separate question. Curved multi machine structures are expensive, and the claim as granted would cover the same transition mechanic on a much more ordinary overhead sign above a straight bank of four machines. That is probably the point.

Related Concepts

• Aristocrat Leisure – the listed Australian parent group behind the United States applicant on this filing.
• Casino game – the wider category of wagering games the multiplayer base game sits within.
• Video wall – the display technique behind the communal area formed from many screens above a bank of machines.
• Curved screen – the display format the specification uses to build its archways from opposing pairs of machines.
• Multiplayer video game – the shared session model this transplants onto a row of individually wagered machines.

---

AU 2026202162 was published in the Australian Official Journal of Patents on 9 April 2026 and is open for public inspection. Patent applications represent inventions that are sought to be protected and do not necessarily reflect commercially available products.