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 Status
After the amendments filed 05/21/2026, claims 1-20 remain pending, of which 1, 3, 8, and 16 were amended.
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 the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed to at least one of abstract idea groupings, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines (Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity). Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
More specifically, regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a system and/or process, which is are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A-1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 recites the following, with the abstract ideas highlighted in bold, including an indication as to the abstract idea grouping(s) to which the indicated limitations belong to, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines. Independent claim 8, having substantially similar features, was also analyzed and to which the following conclusion is also applicable:
1. A gaming system comprising one or more processors and memory, the memory storing data defining one or more reel strip sets associated with a change in a size of a symbol matrix, and further storing computer-executable instructions which, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
for a game instance:
loading, from the memory, a reel strip set of the one or more reel strip sets comprising:
a first plurality of reel strips for an initially active first row of symbol locations in a symbol matrix of the gaming system, wherein the loaded first plurality of reel strips is based on a first random number and a second plurality of reel strips for an initially inactive second row of symbol locations in the symbol matrix, wherein the loaded second plurality of reel strips is based on a second random number (Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity); and
displaying each respective reel strip of the first plurality of reel strips in a respective symbol location in the initially active first row of symbol locations, in response to a spin event, (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes), the displaying including:
displaying a first reel strip in a first symbol location in the initially active first row of symbol locations, in response to the spin event, wherein the display of the first reel strip is based on a third random number (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes); and
displaying a second reel strip in a second symbol location in the initially active first row of symbol locations, in response to the spin event, wherein the assignment of the second reel strip is based on a fourth random number (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes);
displaying each respective reel strip of the second plurality of reel strips in a respective symbol location in the initially inactive second row of symbol locations, in response to the spin event, (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes), the displaying including:
displaying a third reel strip in a third symbol location in the initially inactive second row of symbol locations, in response to the spin event, wherein the display of the third reel strip is based on a fifth random number (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes);
displaying a fourth reel strip in a fourth symbol location in the initially inactive second row of symbol locations, in response to the spin event, wherein the display of the fourth reel strip is based on a sixth random number (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes); and
in response to an initiation of a subsequent spin event, reassigning at least two reel strips of the second plurality of reel strips to different symbol locations in the second row of symbol locations, including reassigning the third reel strip to a fifth symbol location different from the third symbol location (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity).
Independent claim 16 recites the following, with the abstract ideas highlighted in bold, including an indication as to the abstract idea grouping(s) to which the indicated limitations belong to, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines:
16. A method of conducting a slot game at a gaming system comprising one or more processors and memory, comprising:
detecting, responsive to a user input to a user interface, an initiation of a game instance having a game spin counter indicating a number of remaining spins in the game instance, wherein each spin event decrements the game spin counter by one and at least one reel outcome resets the game spin counter to an initial value (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity/Mental Processes);
for a game instance:
displaying, from a first plurality of reel strips in the memory a first reel strip to a first symbol location of an initially active row of symbol locations, in response to the spin event, wherein the first plurality of reel strips is based on a first random number (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes);
displaying, from a second plurality of reel strips in the memory, a second reel strip to a second symbol location of an initially inactive row of symbol locations, in response to the spin event, wherein at least one of the first reel strip or the second reel strip includes an award symbol associated with an award spin counter having an initial value that is higher than the initial value of the game spin counter, and the assignment of the second plurality of reel strips is based on a second random number (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes);
performing a first reel spin operation (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
in accordance with a determination that a reel outcome of the first reel spin operation for at least one of the first reel strip or the second reel strip corresponds to the award symbol (Mental Processes), displaying the award symbol and a value of the award spin counter;
performing a second reel spin operation (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
in response to performing the second reel spin operation:
decrementing the game spin counter by one and decrementing the award spin counter by one (Mental Processes);
in accordance with a determination that the value of the award spin counter is zero, awarding a prize associated with the award symbol to a user (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity); and
displaying the awarded prize and the award spin counter (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity); and
in response to an initiation of a subsequent spin event, reassigning the first reel strip to a different symbol location in the initially active row of symbol locations (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity).
The limitations in claim 1 (as well as claim(s) 8 and 16) recite an abstract idea included in the groupings of Mental Process and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, connected to technology only through application thereof using generic computing elements (e.g., one or more processors, memory, etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity.
According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines:
Mental Processes include concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion); and
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include:
1. Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices (including hedging (i.e., wagering), insurance, mitigating risk);
2. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
3. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The interaction encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping.
Specifically, the instant claims include functions/limitations, as highlighted in the independent claim above, that constitute at least:
A. Concepts performed in the human mind (e.g., “detecting, responsive to a user input to a user interface, an initiation of a game instance having a game spin counter indicating a number of remaining spins in the game instance, wherein each spin event decrements the game spin counter by one and at least one reel outcome resets the game spin counter to an initial value”), which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Mental Processes. These limitations are interpreted as at least Mental Processes insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the concepts in the human mind, while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims.
B. Following rules and/or instructions, such as including the functions related to the playing of a game, which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People. These sets of rules are interpreted as at least certain methods of organized human activity insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing or following the set of rules or instructions concerning a game while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in the claims.
Regarding dependent claims 2-7, 9-15 and 17-20:
Each claim is dependent either directly or indirectly from the independent claim identified above and includes all the limitations of said independent claim. Therefore, each dependent claim recites the same abstract idea as identified above. Each of the dependent claim further describes additional aspects of the abstract idea, i.e., additional aspects to the Mental Processes. For example, some dependent claims merely provide additional Mental Processes to be performed and/or additional insignificant extra-solution activity, without anything more significant to establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A-2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1-20 clearly do not improve the functioning of a computer, as they only incorporate generic computing elements, do not effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Similarly, there is no improvement to a technical field. In addition the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way. The claimed invention does not suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer components are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of “one or more processors, memory”, etc. used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility. These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer,’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Further, the claims would require structure that is beyond generic, such as structure that can be interpreted analogous to a general-purpose structure and general-purpose computing elements in that they represent well-understood, routine, conventional elements that do not add significantly more to the claims. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. The elements of one or more processors and memory are well known conventional devices used to electronically implement a game as evidence by 2006/0009278, which discloses that a conventional gaming machine comprises one or more processors and memory to control the overall operation of the gaming machine (¶7, ¶87, ¶94-95). See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The dependent claims do not add “significantly more” for at least the same reasons as directed to their respective independent claims, at least based on the position, as discussed above, that each of the dependent claims merely provide additional limitations to further expand the abstract idea of the independent claims, without adding anything which would establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Consequently, consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception, but rather to a specific technological improvement in gaming system operations. Specifically, applicant argues that the instant claims are directed to a technical solution for managing gaming system operations while enabling complex special symbols (See Remarks, pgs. 9-10). The examiner must respectfully disagree. Under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a claim is directed to an abstract idea if it recites a judicial exception, such as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity or Mental Processes. The current claims explicitly recite loading and displaying a first and second plurality of reel strips based sequentially on a first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth random number, and subsequently “reassigning at least two reel strips of the second plurality…to different symbol location in the second row”. The invocation of multiple distinct random numbers to select data sets and determine grid placement locations falls squarely within the category of Mental Processes. The mental steps do no lose their abstract nature simply because a single logic loop is expanded into six discrete parameter calls. Such operations remain steps which can be performed entirely mentally or using pen and paper. Further, the specific management of active versus inactive rows, and the shuffling of reel symbols to vary layout representation, falls squarely within the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, specifically as rules of conducting a game of chance. Creating constraints on a screen matrix layout to govern how and when a player can unlock standard or special symbols defines the logic and method of playing the game of chance. Rules of a game remain abstract regardless of their internal operation complexity. Therefore, since the claims explicitly recite mental steps and game rules, without any additional elements which constitute “significantly more” than the judicial exception, the claims are directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Applicant argues that under the framework of Ex Parte Dejardins, the claims are integrated into a practical application because the specification identifies a concrete technical problem (i.e., avoiding player pattern detection and managing complex RTP and volatility parameters) and the claims explicitly reflect this improvement. Specifically, applicant argues that the instant claims are directed to improvements in gaming device technology (See Remarks, pgs. 10-11). The examiner must respectfully disagree. In Dejardins, the matrix optimization parameters solved an inherent problem in generic computer execution, specifically, preventing “catastrophic forgetting” during deep-learning neural network cycles. That solution mathematically reduced computational strain, execution latency and training data storage thresholds, which fundamentally improved the data-processing capability of the computer itself. In the instant case, the stated problems of player pattern recognition or controlling RTP and volatility are not problems related to the computer technology, but rather, these represent business and regulatory problems native entirely to the rules and commercial design of wagering games. While the claims require that the system reassign at least two reel strips of the second plurality…to different symbol locations in the second row during a subsequent spin, this logical step does not improve the performance of the computer processor or alter memory allocation efficiency, but rather, it merely shifts the layout coordinates of specific graphical data to modify game logic. An improvement to the game rules cannot be leveraged as an improvement to the underlying computing technology on which the game is applied.
Applicant argues that similar to the claims found eligible in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., the instant claims are directed to an improvement in gaming device functionality (See Remarks, pg. 12). The examiner must respectfully disagree. The claims at issue in Enfish were found eligible because they provided a software architecture that enabled a faster, more flexible database querying tool that fundamentally altered standard operations. In the instant case, the electronic components are invoked at a high level of generality and function purely as a tool to execute the claimed game logic. Further, the generic computing components only change what information is calculated and displayed to a player based on game events, and thus they constitute insignificant extra-solution activity that fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant argues that, analogous to the claims of In Re Smith, the instant claims recite an ordered combination that provide a new technical implementation (See Remarks, pgs. 13-14). The examiner must respectfully disagree. In In Re Smith the court’s reference to a “new or original deck of cards” addressed an entirely new, non-conventional physical tool possessing physically unique properties. In the instant claims, there is merely standard electronic “reel strips” stored purely as digital software data objects within ordinary memory fields. Grouping symbols into “sets” to alter how they display on a coordinate display grid changes the non-functional rules of play, but it does not structurally create a fundamentally new computing asset or display apparatus. When evaluated as an ordered combination, the hardware elements of the instant claims remain standard, generic components that perform routine data processing steps to automate standard game logic. Because the ordered combination simply limits the abstract idea to a generic computer environment, the claims fail to recite an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON PINHEIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-1350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00A-4:30P ET.
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.
/Jason Pinheiro/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights