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 1-19 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. Claims 1-19 recite an abstract idea of organizing of human activity. The claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application and 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
More specifically, regarding Step 1, of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2a1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Claims 1-9 recite: a method in a gaming system having game-logic circuitry including one or more central processing units and one or more memory devices, the one or more memory devices storing (i) an authentication program and (ii) a trusted authentication code, the method comprising:
generating, via execution of the authentication program by the game-logic circuitry, an authentication code based on contents of at least one of the one or memory devices;
comparing the authentication code to the trusted authentication code;
permitting execution of game-outcome logic;
receiving, via one or more input devices, an input io initiate play of a game;
determining, via the game-logic circuity, a randomly selected outcome of the game ;
causing one or more display devices to display, in a display area, a plurality of symbols representing the randomly selected outcome;
evaluating, via the game logic circuity, the plurality of symbols to determine or more award amounts for the randomly selected outcome;
determining an initial total award based on the one or more award amounts;
in response to the plurality of symbols including at least one win-boost symbol, having no singular predetermined value;
accessing, from the one or more memory devices, a predetermined maximum award value applicable to the game;
comparing the initial total award to the predetermined maximum award value;
determining the difference between the maximum award and the initial total award;
assigning the difference to the win-boost symbol;
summing the initial total award and the difference to create a final award that is equal to the predetermined maximum award value;
generating display-control signals that cause the one or more display devices to present an animation indicating application of the difference assigned to the win-boost symbol; and
recording, in the one or more memory devices, award data corresponding to the final award.
Claims 10-16 recite, a gaming system comprising:
one or more input devices;
one or more display devices; and
game-logic circuitry including one or more central processing units and one or more memory devices, the one or more memory devices storing (i) an authentication program, (ii) a trusted authentication code, and (iii) a predetermined maximum award value applicable to the game, the one or more memory device further storing instructions, that when executed by the one or more central processing units, cause the game-logic circuity to:
generate, via execution of the authentication program by the game-logic circuitry, an authentication code based on contents of at least one of the one or memory devices;
compare the authentication code to the trusted authentication code;
permit execution of game-outcome logic only upon determining that the authentication code matches the trusted authentication code;
upon permitting executing of the game-outcome logic:
receive, via at least one of the one or more input devices, an input to initiate play of the game;
determine a randomly selected outcome of the game;
cause the one or more display devices to display, in a display area a plurality of symbols representing the randomly selected outcome;
evaluate the plurality of symbols to determine one or more award amounts for the randomly selected outcome;
determine an initial total award based on the one or more award amounts;
in response to the plurality of symbols including at least one win-boost symbol having no singular predetermined value;
compare the initial total award to a predetermined maximum award value;
determine a difference between the maximum award value and the initial total award,
assign the difference to the win-boost symbol;
sum the initial total award and the difference to create a final award that is equal to the predetermined maximum award value;
generate display control signals that cause the one or more display devices to present an animation indicating application of the difference assigned to the win-boost symbol; and
store, in the one or more memory devices; award data corresponding to the final award.
Claims 17-19 recite, a gaming machine comprising:
one or more input devices;
one or more display devices; and
game-logic circuitry including one or more central processing units and one or more memory devices, the one or more memory devices storing (i) an authentication program, (ii) a trusted authentication code, and (iii) a predetermined maximum award value applicable to the game, the one or more memory device further storing instructions, that when executed by the one or more central processing units, cause the game-logic circuity to:
generate, via execution of the authentication program by the game-logic circuitry, an authentication code based on contents of at least one of the one or memory devices;
compare the authentication code to the trusted authentication code;
permitting execution of game-outcome logic only upon determining that the authentication code matches the trusted authentication code;
upon permitting executing of the game-outcome logic:
receive, via at least one of the one or more input devices, an input to initiate play of the game;
determine a randomly selected outcome of the game;
cause the one or more display devices to display, in a display area a plurality of symbols representing the randomly selected outcome;
evaluate the plurality of symbols to determine one or more award amounts for the randomly selected outcome;
determine an initial total award based on the one or more award amounts;
in response to the plurality of symbols including at least one win-boost symbol having no singular predetermined value;
compare the initial total award to a predetermined maximum award value;
determine a difference between the maximum award value and the initial total award,
assign the difference to the win-boost symbol;
sum the initial total award and the difference to create a final award that is equal to the predetermined maximum award value;
generate display control signals that cause the one or more display devices to present an animation indicating application of the difference assigned to the win-boost symbol; and
store, in the one or more memory devices; award data corresponding to the final award.
The underlined limitations recite an abstract idea of organizing human activity. The claims recite rules for managing a game. A management of a game is a management of a social activity, which is an organization of human activity.
Step 2a2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration of whether the claim recites additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application.
An additional element or combination of additional elements that are indicative of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application include:
-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
Additional element or combination of additional elements that are not indicative of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application include:
-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 1-19 do not apply a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing.
Claims 1-19 are not directed to an improvement to a function of a computer. 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 additional elements of: a gaming system/machine having game logic circuitry including one or more central processing units, one or more memory devices storing an authentication program and a trusted authentication code, , input device, displaying device, value output device are directed to a generic gaming device or components of a generic gaming device. The gaming system and gaming machine generally links the abstract idea to an electronic embodiment.
The additional element of generating display control signals that cause the one or more display devices to present an animation indicating application; amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
For the reasons discussed above, the additional elements identified above considered alone and in combination fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception.
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 17, the claims recite the additional elements of a gaming system/machine having game logic circuitry including one or more central processing units, one or more memory devices, input device, displaying device. These components are well known, routine and conventional. Chen (US 2006/0116208) discloses it well known for gaming machine and system to comprise input devices (paragraph 5), display devices (paragraph 5), value output device (coin hopper, dispenser, ticket printers, paragraphs 5, 51); central processing unit (paragraph 5) and memory devices (paragraphs 5, 59-60).
The claims also recite additional elements of: the one or more memory devices storing (i) an authentication program and (ii) a trusted authentication code, the method comprising: generating, via execution of the authentication program by the game-logic circuitry, an authentication code based on contents of at least one of the one or memory devices; comparing the authentication code to the trusted authentication code; permitting execution of game-outcome logic. These limitations are directed to known method of authenticating a program and cryptography. Okada (US 2008/0076558) discloses that is well known to use authentication program to authenticate game program (paragraph 96).
The step of presenting an animation on a display device of the difference assigned to the win boost symbols is a step of displaying information. The steps of displaying information is well known, routine and conventional. The Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, 18-19 further recite the abstract idea of organizing human activity. The claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 3/9/2026 with respected to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an organization of human activity but now requires “an authentication gate”. However, the claimed authentication program to generate an authentication code and permitting the game execution only if the authentication code matches the trusted authentication code uses known computer method of authenticating software.
Applicant argues that the without this the RNG programming or game outcome logic is not allowed to perform or executing in a regulatory approved manner.
All electronic wagering machines are required to operate in a regulatory approved manner. The use of a gaming system having game logic circuitry, authentication program and a trusted authentication code used to permit execution of the game program generally ties the abstract idea to an electric embodiment or generic electronic wagering machine.
Applicant argues that the claims recite a method performed by "game-logic circuitry" using a "randomly selected outcome". As the Specification explains, this outcome is determined by a random number generator (RNG) that "cycles continuously... at a speed that cannot be timed by the player" and "cannot be carried out manually by a human”. The claimed method is thus impossible for a human to perform. However, the claimed invention is not directed to an improvement of an RNG. Rather, the RNG generally ties the abstract idea to a computer embodiment.
Applicant argues that the claims recite practical application by reciting a specific discloses machine that constrains operation of regulated gaming equipment. However, the additional elements recite generic components of a gaming equipment.
Applicant argues that the claim recites a concrete award-formation pipeline implemented by game-logic circuitry that uses defined intermediate values and operations: award amounts are determined from the outcome, then summed to form an initial total award; upon detection of a win-boost symbol, a supplemental award equal to the difference between a maximum award and the initial total award is assigned to the win-boost symbol; and a final award is formed that equals the maximum award. The Specification describes this core concept and the variable nature of the win-boost. However, this variable win boost and how it is determined as claimed is an abstract idea of managing a game by following rules.
Applicant argues that the claims now required generation of animation and refers to the specification of the type of animation. The display of an animation to indicate information about the award is position solution display which is extra solution activity.
Applicant also argues that the claim requires storing award data. The step of storing award data is abstract. The use of a computer or storage media is an electronic implementation using conventional gaming components.
Applicant argues with regards to Step 2B, the claim limitations mentioned above provide improvements to a field or technology. As indicated above, the claim limitations generally links the use of the judicial exception to an electronic gaming environment. There is no improvement to the gaming machine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jasson H Yoo whose telephone number is (571)272-5563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571 270-7625. 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.
/JASSON H YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715