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
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are pending. Claims 1-8 and 10-20 have been amended and no new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/4/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative asserts that the rejection under 35 USC 101 are not directed to non-statutory subject matter identified as a certain method of organizing human activity. Specifically, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the amended claims recite additional elements that are i) not directed generic, conventional, or well-known (see Remarks, pg. 11), ii) not extra solution activity because they impose meaningful limits on the claims that are not incidental to the process or product (see Remarks, pg. 11-12); iii) entirely alter the flow of operation of the claimed electronic gaming machine that is not merely nominal or tangential to the claim (see Remarks, pg. 11-12); and iv) the claimed are directed to an electronic gaming machine (including a housing with an access door, a security monitoring circuit, and additional elements pertaining to the detected opening and closing of the access door) that enables a reaction of reel sets that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea (see Remarks, pg. 12-13). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are found to be directed to a certain method of organizing human activity such as a managing a play of an game in which the additional elements are found to be conventional, routine, and well-known components that are mere instructions to invoke an electronic gaming machine to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements are not found to integrate the claim into a practical application because they perform their well-known function to conform with regulatory requirements that amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea.
With respect to the first argument, the Applicant’s representative asserts that additional elements of the claim are not generic, convention, or well-known to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite additional elements such as “a housing comprising an access door, a security monitoring circuit supported by the housing; a processor; and a memory device; and a display device. As noted in the Office Action, Vancura discloses a conventional gaming machine includes a housing, a processor, a memory device, and a display device that well-known, conventional and routine components of an electronic gaming machine to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0008, 0037-0040). Moreover, Gaming Labs Certified, specifically in its “Standard Series GLI-11:Gaming Devices” discloses conventional standards for an electronic gaming machine that includes an access door and a security monitoring circuit that disables the formation of any offer, stores data in non-volatile memory to store the display state, load stored data to reconstitute the display state and enable formation of the first offer following the closing of the access door (see Gaming Labs, “Machine Doors” – pg. 16-17; sections associated with “Critical NV Memory”, pg. 21-25; “Game Program Interruption and Resumption”, pg. 72; “Game History Recall, pg. 76-77). It follows that these additional elements are generic, conventional, and well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art as highly-generalized functions and components that are utilized to conform with standard regulatory requirements. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
With respect to the second argument, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims are not extra solution activity because they impose meaningful limits on the claims that are not incidental to the process or product (see Remarks, pg. 11-12). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite steps and/or instructions of managing the game that are directed to a desired result from opening and closing the access door on the electronic gaming device. As noted above, these conforms with regulatory requirements but fails to provide details of how the technological solution to the technical problem is accomplished that might integrate the claim into a practical application. Instead the claim invoked highly-generalized electronic gaming machine components merely as a tool to perform an existing regulatory process that amounts to merely applying the abstract idea into a conventional electronic gaming machine and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h)). For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection has been maintained below.
With respect to the third argument, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the additional elements alter the flow of operation of the claimed electronic gaming machine that is not merely nominal or tangential (see Remarks, pg. 11-12). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, the additional elements of the amended claims recite steps and/or instructions that merely conform with regulatory requirements of an electronic gaming machine to be used in a commercial wagering game environment. This does not alter the flow of operation, as the flow of operation of the claimed electronic gaming machine is still directed to regulatory standards for managing a game on an electronic gaming machine does not change the operation of managing a game. It follows that these additional elements do not integrate the claim into a practical application but amount to mere instructions to apply an exception which includes a common place business method (e.g., managing a game) being applied on a conventional electronic gaming machine which does not integrate the claim into a practical application and/or solve a technical solution to a technical problem (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). For at least these reasons, the arguments are not persuasive and the rejection has been maintained below.
With respect to the fourth argument, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the amended limitations directed to a housing with an access door, a security monitoring circuit, and additional elements pertaining to the detected opening and closing of the access door amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea (see Remarks, pg. 12-13). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown through the Gaming Labs, the conventional standards for an electronic gaming machine for an access door, a security monitoring circuit, and steps pertaining to the detected opening and closing of the access doors recite conventional steps for conforming with regulatory standards that are well-known, routine, and conventional to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts. It follows that these elements when considered individually and/or as collection of elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea but mere steps to implement a common place business method (e.g., managing a game) by invoke a conventional electronic gaming machine to implement the abstract idea. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection has been maintained below.
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 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims, as exemplified by independent claim 1, recite limitations directed to a grouping of abstract ideas such as:
Claim 1 (currently amended): An electronic gaming machine comprising: a housing comprising an access door:
a security monitoring circuit supported by the housing:
a processor; and
a memory device that
PNG
media_image1.png
5
3
media_image1.png
Greyscale
stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor in association with a sequence comprising a plurality of plays of a game comprising a first reel set, the first reel set being active and comprising a first plurality of reels associated with a first plurality of symbol display positions, and responsive to a second reel set comprising a second plurality of reels associated with a second plurality of symbol display positions being active at a first point in time prior to a sequence award determination event occurring in association with the sequence, -certain method of organizing human activity; cause the processor to:
cause a display, by a display device and prior to a second point in time after the first point in time, of the first reel set being active, the second reel set being active, and any accumulated symbols at any symbol display position of the reel set at which the accumulated symbol was accumulated at while that reel set was active; -certain method of organizing human activity;
when an opening of the access door is detected via the security monitoring circuit following the second reel set being deactivated at the second point in time after the first point in time; -certain method of organizing human activity;
store data associated with a display state of the electronic gaming machine prior to the detection of the opening of the access door, the data comprising the first reel set being active, the second reel set being inactive, and any accumulated symbols at any symbol display position of the reel set at which the accumulated symbol was accumulated at while that reel set was active, -certain method of organizing human activity;
disable any reactivation of the second reel set, following a closing of the access door detected via the security monitoring circuit:
load the stored data to reconstitute the stored display state of the electronic gaming machine, enable a reactivation of the second reel set, and responsive to and the sequence award determination event occurring at the second point in time:
determine a first total award, wherein: -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
the first total award is determined based on any symbols accumulated at the plurality of first symbol display positions associated with the first plurality of reels of the first reel set and independent of any symbols accumulated at any of the second plurality of symbol display positions associated with the second plurality of reels of the second reel set, -certain method of organizing human activity;
any accumulated symbols are accumulated over the plurality of plays of the game independent of the reel set associated with the symbol display position at which the accumulated symbol is accumulated at being any of active, inactive, deactivated and reactivated, and any accumulated symbols remain displayed, by the display device, independent of the reel set associated with the symbol display position at which the accumulated symbol is accumulated at being any of active, inactive, deactivated and reactivated, -certain method of organizing human activity; and cause a display, by a display device, of the first total award, and
responsive to the sequence award determination event occurring at a third point in time after the second point in time and following the second reel set being deactivated at the second point in time, and the second reel set being reactivated at the third point in time: -certain method of organizing human activity;
determine a second total award, wherein: -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
the second total award is determined based on any symbols accumulated at the plurality of first symbol display positions associated with the first plurality of reels of the first reel set and any symbols accumulated at any of the second plurality of symbol display positions associated with the second plurality of reels of the second reel set, -certain method of organizing human activity;
any accumulated symbols are accumulated over the plurality of plays of the game independent of the reel set associated with the symbol display position at which the accumulated symbol is accumulated at being any of active, inactive, deactivated and reactivated, any accumulated symbols remain displayed, by the display device, independent of the reel set associated with the symbol display position at which the accumulated symbol is accumulated at being any of active, inactive, deactivated and reactivated, -certain method of organizing human activity; and
cause a display, by a display device, of the second total award.
The above limitations are found to recite a certain method of organizing human activity for reciting a series of rules and/or instructions for managing a sequence for a plurality of plays of a game (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Additionally, the above limitations indicated as mental processes are because they recite an observation, judgment, evaluation, and/or opinion that is capable of being performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent claim 1, recite a grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A-prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations such as: “cause a display, by a display device” “and cause a display, by a display device, of the first total award”, “by the display device”, and “cause a display, by a display device, of the second total award.” recite steps to cause a display, by a display device associated with steps of the game which recites insignificant extra solution activity of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The remaining limitations such as: “An electronic gaming machine comprising: a housing comprising an access door: a security monitoring circuit supported by the housing: a processor; and a memory device that
PNG
media_image1.png
5
3
media_image1.png
Greyscale
stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor” “cause the processor to:” “when an opening of the access door is detected via the security monitoring circuit following” “disable any reactivation of the second reel set, following a closing of the access door detected via the security monitoring circuit:” “load the stored data to reconstitute the stored display state of the electronic gaming machine, enable a reactivation of the second reel set, and responsive to and the sequence award determination event occurring at the second point in time:” amount to instructions to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h)). For at least these reasons, the additional limitations are not found to integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because an electronic gaming machine comprising: “a housing comprising an access door;” “a security monitoring circuit supported by the housing;” “a processor”, “a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor” and “a display device” when viewed individually and/or as a combination of elements amounts to invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For instance, Vancura (US 2010/0029381 A1) discloses a conventional gaming system comprising a processor, a display device, and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions, that, when executed by the processor to manage a game is known to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0008, 0037-0040). Moreover, Gaming Labs’s “Standard Series GLI-11: Gaming Devices” discloses that a conventional electronic gaming machine to conform with regulatory standards comprises an access door and a security monitoring circuit, and non-volatile memory that when an opening of the access door is detected via the security monitoring circuit: disable any game state associated with the sequence of the game, store data associated with a display state of the electronic gaming machine prior to the detection of the opening of the access door, the data comprising the game state information, and following the closing of the access door via the security monitoring circuit, load the stored data to reconstitute the stored display state and enable a reactivation of the game (see Gaming Labs, “Machine Doors” – pg. 16-17; sections associated with “Critical NV Memory”, pg. 21-25; “Game Program Interruption and Resumption”, pg. 72; “Game History Recall, pg. 76-77). For at least these reasons, the additional elements are not found to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Regarding independent claim 10, the Claim recites substantially the same limitations as discussed above that are directed to a certain method of organizing human activity and also includes: “responsive to an occurrence of a second reel set activation event in association with the second reel set: modify the second reel set from being in the inactive state to being in the active state,” “responsive to an occurrence of a second reel set deactivation event in association with the second reel set: modify the reel set from being in the active state to being in the inactive state,” and “responsive to an occurrence of a second reel set reactivation event in association with the second reel set, modify the second reel set from being in the inactive state to being in the active state.” – certain method of organizing human activity. For at least these reasons, the claims are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A-prong 1. The additional limitations such as “cause a display, by a display device, of a plurality of reel sets, wherein the plurality of reel sets comprises a first reel set in an active state and a second reel set in an inactive state, and, for each reel set, any symbols displayed at any available symbol display positions of that reel set are accumulated independent of that reel set being any of active, inactive, deactivated, and reactivated”, “cause a display, by the display device, of the second reel set in the active state and any accumulated symbols displayed at the symbol display position of the second reel set at which the accumulated symbol was accumulated at while the second reel set was in the inactive state”, “cause a display, by the display device, of the second reel set in the inactive state”, and “cause a display, by the display device, of the second reel set in the active state and any accumulated symbols displayed at the symbol display positions of the second reel set at which the accumulated symbol was accumulated at while the second reel set was in the inactive state” which recite insignificant extra solution activity, amount to invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or to provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h). The remaining limitations are addressed above with respect to independent Claim 1 and the analysis is incorporated herein. For at least this reasons, the claims are not found to integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2. The remaining limitations are not found to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for substantially the same reasons as independent Claim 1 as discussed above.
Regarding claim 18, the Claim recites the limitations: “in association with a sequence comprising a plurality of plays of a game”, “when the sequence is triggered, each reel set is one of an initially active reel set and an initially inactive reel set,” “responsive to an occurrence of a reel set activation event in association with any initially inactive reel sets,” and “responsive to an occurrence of a reel set deactivation event in associated with any initially active reel sets, deactivate that reel set” and “responsive to an occurrence of a reel set reactivation event in association with any deactivated reel sets, reactivate that reel set” -certain method of organizing human activity. For at least this reason, the claims are found to be directed to a grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A-prong 1.
The additional limitations such as: “a processor”, “a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor” “cause a display, by a display device , of a plurality of reel sets, wherein: each reel set comprising a plurality of symbol display positions,” “cause a display, by the display device, of an accumulation of a quantity of symbols, over the plurality of plays of the game and independent of each reel set being one of active, inactive, deactivated and reactivated, at a quantity of the symbol display positions associated with the plurality of reel sets,” “cause a display, by the display device, of that reel set in the active state and any accumulated symbols displayed at the symbol display position of that reel set at which the accumulated symbol was accumulated at while that reel set was in the inactive state,” and “cause a display, by the display device, of that reel set in the active state and any accumulated symbols displayed at the symbol display position of that reel set at which the accumulated symbol was accumulated at while that reel set was in the inactive state” amount to invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, extra solution activity of the abstract idea, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). The remaining limitations are addressed above with respect to independent Claim 1 and the analysis is incorporated herein. For at least this reasons, the claims are not found to integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2.
Regarding dependent claims 2-8, 11-17, and 19-20, the limitations have been reviewed and were found to recite further limitations directed to a grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)), invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, extra solution activity, and/or providing a technological environment to perform the abstract idea. For at least these reasons, claims 1-8, 10-20 are found to be directed to an abstract ideas without significantly more.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00-6:00 PM.
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.
/RYAN HSU/EXAMINER, Art Unit 3715