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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 28th, 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement entered April 28th, 2026 has been considered. A copy of the cited statement(s) including the notation indicating its respective consideration is attached for the Applicant's records.
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 1-6, 8-17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As summarized in MPEP § 2106, subject matter eligibility is determined based on a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The instant application includes claims concerning an electronic gaming machine system (i.e., a machine) in claims 1-6, 8-15, and 21 a computer-implemented method (i.e., a process) in claims 20 and a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e. a manufacture) in claim 16-17, 19, and 22.
In Prong 1 of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon.
In particular exemplary presented claim 1 includes the following underlined claim elements:
1. An electronic gaming system comprising:
a memory; and
a processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory, which when executed, cause the processor to:
store a first plurality of reels and a second plurality of reels in the memory, wherein each reel includes a data structure tracking one or more symbol positions on the reel;
cause display of a base game outcome within a first play area, the base game outcome including the first plurality of reels in the first play area including a number of instances of a feature symbol, wherein the base outcome is determined based upon a first RNG outcome;
determine that the number of instances of the feature symbol displayed in the first play area does not satisfy a first condition to trigger a feature game, the first condition being a threshold count of instances of the feature symbol displayed in the first play area during a tracking period that restarts each time the feature game is triggered;
store a plurality of lookup tables in the memory, wherein each lookup table of the plurality of lookup tables corresponds to a unique number of feature symbols, each lookup table of the plurality of lookup tables including a data structure with probabilities assigned to different entries of the lookup table wherein a probability that a second condition to trigger the feature game is determined by applying a second RNG outcome to a lookup table that corresponds with the number of feature symbols, wherein each lookup table of the plurality of lookup tables having a greater number of feature symbols associated therewith has a higher probability to trigger the feature game than a lookup table being associated with a lower number of feature symbols;
determine a first lookup table of the plurality of lookup tables based upon the number of instances of the feature symbol in the first play area;
in response to determining that the first condition is not satisfied, determine that the second condition to trigger the feature game is satisfied by the second RNG outcome generated by generating a random number using the second RNG outcome and performing a lookup operation in the first lookup table of the plurality of lookup tables;
in response to determining that the second condition is satisfied, initiate the feature game and cause display of an outcome of the feature game within a second play area, the second play area including a second plurality of reels including the number of instances of the feature symbol;
wherein the number of instances of the feature symbol is greater than one and less than the threshold count of instances of the feature symbol required to satisfy the first condition; and
after initiation of the feature game, cause display of an additional number of instances of the feature symbol in the second play area by replacing the data in at least one corresponding symbol position of at least one reel of the second plurality of reels, such that a total number of instances of the feature symbol in the second play area meets or exceeds the threshold count of instances of the feature symbol required to satisfy the first condition.
The claim elements underlined above, concern the court enumerated abstract ideas of Mental Processes including observation, evaluation, and judgement because the claims are directed to series of steps for determining and displaying game outcomes as well as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including managing personal behavior including interactions between people including social activities and following rules or instructions because the claims set forth the interactions involving one or more parties in the context of a game interface.
As the exemplary claim recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon it is further considered under Prong 2 of Step 2A to determine if the claim recites additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Wherein the practical applications are set forth by MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) are broadly directed to: the improvement in technology, use of a particular machine and applying or using the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a technology environment. Limitations that explicitly do not support the integration of the judicial exception in to a practical application are defined by MPEP 2106.05(f-h) and include merely using a computer to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology environment or field of use.
With respect to the above the claimed invention is not integrated into a practical application because it does not meet the criteria of MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) and although it is performed on a processor and a memory it is not directed to a particular machine because the hardware elements are not linked to a specific device/machine and would reasonably include other devices such as generic computers, smart phones, game consoles, and the like. Accordingly, the claims limitations are not indicative of the integration of the identified judicial exception into a practical application, and the consideration of patent eligibility continues to step 2B.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea(s) per se including a processor and a memory amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structures that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry per the applicant’s description (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0029], [0048], [0053], [0064]). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, as presented the claimed invention when considered as a whole amounts to the mere instructions to implement an abstract idea [i.e. software or equivalent process steps] on a generic computer [i.e. controller or processor] without causing the improvement of the generic computer or another technology field.
The applicant’s specification is further noted as supporting the above rejection wherein neither the abstract idea nor the associated generic computer structure as claimed are disclosed as improving another technological field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, or meaningfully linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0029], [0048], [0053], [0064]). In particular the applicant’s specification only contains computing elements which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and accordingly their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art per the requirements of 37 CFR 1.71. Were these elements of the applicant’s invention to be presented in the future as non-conventional and non-generic involvement of a computing structure, such would stand at odds with the disclosure of the applicant's invention as found in their specification as originally filed.
“[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . .a computer,’ . . . that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132S. Ct. at 1301). In this case, the claims recite a generic computer implementation of the covered abstract idea.
The remaining presented claims 2-6, 8-17, and 19-22 incorporate substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with respect to the exemplary claim 1, while the additional elements recited by the additional claims including one or more of a processor and a memory as respectively presented that when considered both individually and as a whole in the respective combinations of the additional claims are not sufficient to support patent eligibility under prong 2 of step 2A or step 2B for the reasons set forth above with respect to the exemplary claim 1 and further present substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with reflection to exemplary claim 1 above and therefore are similarly directed to or otherwise include abstract ideas.
Therefore, the listed claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 6th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Commencing on pages 11-16, Section A, of the Applicant’s above dated remarks, the Applicant presents that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea based on the following arguments:
i. that when considered under step 2A Prong One of the Subject Matter eligibility Analysis and in view of the August 4, 2025 USPTO memorandum (Kim, Charles. "Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C.101." August 4, 2025), the claimed invention should be understood as not being directed to an abstract idea because the claimed invention includes the manipulation of electronic signals, including the dynamic real-time manipulation of a graphical user interfaces to adjust complex probability calculations, the utilization of lookup tables stored in memory and managing random number generator (RNG) to achieve a desired return to player (RTP), in the practice of a near-real time game it is unsuitable to be practically performed in the human mind and are not methods of organizing human activity because they involve a computer implemented method steps for the storage and manipulation of data structures (Applicant Remarks pages 11-13);
ii. that the patent eligibility of the claimed invention is further supported by Prong 2, of Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test because the claimed invention, when considered as whole, reflects technical improvement in the operation, capability and user interface (UI) and managing the volatility and return to player (RTP) features of electronic game machines with the use of lookup tables that enhance use experience by controlling the degree of randomness as noted in paragraphs [0021]-[0023] [0025]-[0029] of the applicant’s specification (Applicant Remarks pages 14-16); and
iii. that the claimed invention concerns the manipulation of computer data and that as such MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Sub section III.A and the court’s decision in Research Corp. Techs., 627 F.3d at 868, 97 USPQ2d at 1280 supports eligibility on the basis that it is not a mental process because it cannot be performed in human mind (Applicant Remarks pages 16)
Responsive to the Applicant arguments as referenced above the following is noted respective corresponding order:
i-a. While the claimed invention is practiced on a computer, the involvement of a computer and steps performed thereon does not separate the claimed invention from the identified enumerated groupings of abstract ideas as per MPEP §2106.04(a)(2) Subsections II, II.C, III.C, wherein Sub section III.C specifically addresses the inclusion of Mental processes performed through or by use of a computer. Additionally, while the Applicant notes that the claimed invention reflects, the manipulation of electronic signals, including the dynamic real-time manipulation of a graphical user interfaces to adjust complex probability calculations, the utilization and manipulation of lookup tables stored in memory and managing random number generator (RNG) to achieve a desired return to player (RTP), in the practice of a near-real time game that are not suitable to be performed by the human mind, it is respectfully noted that the claimed invention does not speak to a time basis (near real-time) or establish a difficultly of functions being performed and there is no evidence of record that would support the proposition that the claimed invention is beyond the capability of a human since such is common practice in conventional gambling table games practiced without a computer including card games such as was addressed by the court in In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 118 U.S.P.Q.2d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Applicant proposition that the claimed invention does not recite rules for a game but instead is directed to the computer storage and manipulation of data structures stands at odds with the claimed electronic game system the determines the outcome of a base game, determines if that outcome triggers a feature game and displays the respective game outcomes as particularly claimed in exemplary claim 1. Additionally, the courts have noted that similar systems and method directed to the manipulation of data and providing a displayed result in a gaming context are not patent eligible ( “Realigning and altering the display of symbols on simulated reels is the very essence of the generic slot game.” Konami Gaming Inc. v. High 5 Games, LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-01483, 2018 WL 1020120 at *19(D.Nev. 2018), aff’d Appeal No. 2018-1723 (Fed. Cir. 2019)(Fed. Cir. R. 36)) and accordingly the proposition that these features would separately support patent eligibility are respectfully non-persuasive;
ii-a. An "improvement in computer-related technology" is not limited to improvements in the operation of a computer or a computer network per se, but may also be claimed as a set of "rules" (basically mathematical relationships) that improve computer-related technology by allowing computer performance of a function not previously performable by a computer. In McRO, Inc. dba Planet Blue v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 120 USPQ2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2016) for instance, the court found that the claims were directed to an improvement in computer-related technology (allowing computers to produce "accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters" that previously could only be produced by human animators), and thus represented an improvement in technology. While the claims of the instant invention define a set of rules for determining a game outcome with use of a lookup table and a random number generator in an electronic gaming system, these rules do not improve the functionality of the computer by allowing computer performance of a function not previously performable by a computer in a manner similar to McRO. Proposed improvements to game play rules or even improvements to the algorithms themselves that do not result in an improvement of the hardware which they are practiced on are not sufficient to improve the functionality of the computer but instead result in the mere operation or practice of these rules and algorithms on a computer in a manner specifically caution against in Alice, “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . .a computer,’ . . . that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132S. Ct. at 1301).
Additionally, the technical problem of utilizing random outcomes while maintaining a desired return-to-player and by extension profitability for the game operator is not a technical problem based in technology but instead involves a problem of game rules to ensure that game payouts and probabilities of the same are balanced in a fashion to maintain a profitable outcome for the game operator. Alternatively stated, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the features Applicant identifies as the inventive concept are part of the abstract idea itself; as such, these features cannot constitute the “inventive concept.” See Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 890 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Moore, J., concurring) (“It is clear from Mayo that the ‘inventive concept’ cannot be the abstract idea itself, and Berkheimer . . . leave[s] untouched the numerous cases from this court which have held claims ineligible because the only alleged ‘inventive concept’ is the abstract idea.”); see also BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.”).
Accordingly, the claimed invention even when considered in light of the Applicant’s disclosure including cited paragraphs [0021]-[0023] [0025]-[0029], and MPEP §2106.05(a) & 2106.04(d))(1) respectfully does not support an improvement in technology as proposed.
iii-a. The proposition that the claimed invention is not amental process because it involves the use of a computer to manipulate data is addressed herein above under section i-a. Additionally, as further noted in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Sub section III.A claims that recite "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claimed invention similarly recites the steps of generating a game outcome, based on a determined RNG outcome and a corresponding lookup table that is recited at a high level of generality and is analogous to considerations addressed in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016), In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 118 U.S.P.Q.2d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2016) & Konami Gaming Inc. v. High 5 Games, LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-01483, 2018 WL 1020120 at *19(D.Nev. 2018), aff’d Appeal No. 2018-1723 (Fed. Cir. 2019)(Fed. Cir. R. 36))
Continuing on pages 16-17, Section B, of the Applicant’s above dated remarks, the Applicant presents that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea based on the following argument:
iv. that the claimed invention reflects significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the office action does not establish that the use of data structures including multiple disparate conditional lookup tables associated with different probabilities of triggering a feature game is well-understood, routine or conventional (Applicant Remarks pages 16-17); and
v. that example 3 of the 2019 PEG supports the eligibility of the claimed invention because the claimed invention when considered as a whole incorporates a modification of a data structure that is proposed as being analogous to the example feature of "comparing the blue noise mask to a gray scale image to transform the gray scale image to a binary image array" and "converting the binary image array into a halftoned image" (Applicant Remarks page 17)
Responsive to the Applicant arguments as referenced above the following is noted:
iv-a. It is respectfully noted that only the non-abstract portions of the claimed invention must be shown to be well-understood, routine or conventional under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, and that the rejection of record does so through based on the cited portions of applicant’s specification and the drafting requirements of the same as set forth by 37 CFR 1.71. The abstract features Applicant identifies as the inventive concept are part of the abstract idea itself; as such, these features cannot constitute the “inventive concept.” See Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 890 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Moore, J., concurring) (“It is clear from Mayo that the ‘inventive concept’ cannot be the abstract idea itself, and Berkheimer . . . leave[s] untouched the numerous cases from this court which have held claims ineligible because the only alleged ‘inventive concept’ is the abstract idea.”); see also BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.”). Based on the preceding the claimed the invention does not support the presence of significantly more under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test as proposed.
v-a. It is respectfully noted that the claimed invention is not analogous to imaging processing as presented in example 3 of the 2019 PEG because it does not similarly involve digital image processing. With regards to the Applicant’s proposal that the modification of data by a computer could more broadly support the presence of patent eligible subject matter, this position conflicts with the following court decisions.
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) notes, that using a computer to create and maintain “shadow” accounts amounts to electronic recordkeeping—one of the most basic functions of a computer. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U. S., at 65 (noting that a computer “operates . . . upon both new and previously stored data”). The same is true with respect to the use of a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances, and issue automated instructions; all of these computer functions are “well-understood, routine, conventional activities]” previously known to the industry. Mayo, 566 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 4).
In Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48.
Additionally, the circuit court found that, collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, did not support eligibility because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
In view of the preceding the rejection of claims is respectfully maintained as presented herein above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E MOSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-4451. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:45-3:45.
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.
ROBERT E. MOSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/ROBERT E MOSSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights