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 .
Status of the Application
This Office-Action acknowledges the Amendment filed on 2/5/2026 and is a response to said Amendment.
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, 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (What is the statutory category?):
Claims 1-6, 8-20 are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (ie: process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A; Prong I (Does the claim recite an abstract idea?):
Claim 1 recites:A system comprising:
a processor circuit; and
a memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to:
display, on a display device of a gaming device in response to receiving a wager from a user of the gaming device, a graphical user interface for a wagering game comprising a plurality of game symbols arranged in an array and a volatility selection input that is configured to receive a volatility selection value from the user;
automatically determine an award amount that the user has won in a previous wagering game; and
responsive to the received volatility selection value, reconfigure the wagering game by inserting one or more paylines into a set of playing for the arranged plurality of game symbols and evaluate subsequent game outcomes using the set of paylines to provide a volatility corresponding to the volatility selection value,
wherein the instructions further cause the processor circuit to determine an award threshold value that corresponds to the award amount that a player has received during a wagering session.
Claim 14 recites:A gaming device comprising:
a display device;
an input device;
a processor circuit; and
a memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to:
display, on the display device of a gaming device in response to receiving a wager from a user of the gaming device, a graphical user interface for a wagering game comprising a volatility selection input that is configured to receive a volatility selection value from the user, wherein the volatility selection value comprises one of a reward selection or a risk selection;
automatically determine an award amount that the user has won in a previous wagering game; and
responsive to the received volatility selection value, reconfigure the wagering game by inserting one or more paylines into a set of playing for the arranged plurality of game symbols and evaluate subsequent game outcomes using the set of paylines to provide a volatility corresponding to the volatility selection value,
wherein, responsive to the volatility selection value being a reward selection, the instructions further cause the processor circuit to automatically lock the award amount for subsequent portions of a wagering session.
Claim 19 recites:A method comprising:
displaying, on a display device of a gaming device in response to receiving a wager from a user of the gaming device, a graphical user interface for a wagering game comprising a volatility selection input that is configured to receive a volatility selection value from the user, wherein the volatility selection value comprises one of a reward selection or a risk selection;
automatically determining, using a processing circuit, an award amount that the user has won in a previous wagering game;
responsive to the received volatility selection value, reconfigure the wagering game by inserting one or more paylines into a set of playing for the arranged plurality of game symbols and evaluate subsequent game outcomes using the set of paylines to provide a volatility corresponding to the volatility selection value,
responsive to the volatility selection value being a reward selection, automatically locking the award amount for subsequent portions of a wagering session;
responsive to the volatility selection value being a risk selection, wagering using the award amount for subsequent portions of the wagering session; and
automatically determining an award threshold value that corresponds to an award amount that a player has received during the wagering session.
[the examiner submits that the foregoing underlined elements recite certain method of organizing human activity because they describe “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)”]
To further elaborate on the Examiner’s interpretation regarding the claimed invention being directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity, the Examiner believes the invention describe managing interactions between people and machine (ie: a wagering gaming machine) in which rules or instructions for the gaming machine is being implemented (ie: automatically determine an award amount that the user has won in a previous wagering game; and set the volatility selection value of the award amount to correspond to a user defined volatility; responsive to the volatility selection value being a reward selection, automatically locking the award amount for subsequent portions of a wagering session; responsive to the volatility selection value being a risk selection, wagering using the award amount for subsequent portions of the wagering session; and automatically determining an award threshold value that corresponds to an award amount that a player has received during the wagering session.)
Step 2A; Prong II (Does the claim recite a practical application?):
The examiner submits that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or use a computer as tool to perform the abstract idea.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons. The claim elements of claim 1, 14, and 19 above that are not underlined constitute additional limitations.
The examiner submits that the following additional limitation merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: processor circuit, memory, display device.
The Examiner finds that there are concepts regarding the application simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality. For example, the Examiner would also like to point out that Saffari (US 20030050111) teaches a conventional gaming machine (system) comprising an input device used to play a game, processor to implement the game, memory device, and/or display are used to allow a player to play a game to a determined outcome (paragraph 2).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology; there is no additional element that applies or uses 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; the additional elements merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Step 2B (Are there additional elements that are “something more” than an abstract idea?):
Dependent Claims 2-13, 15-18, and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states:
“Claim 1 is patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Under the Alice/Mayo framework (see MPEP § 2106), specifically Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is not directed to an abstract idea. The claims recite a system, device, and method that "automatically determine an award amount that the user has won in a previous wagering game" and "responsive to the received volatility selection value," "reconfigure the wagering game by inserting one or more paylines into a set of paylines ... and evaluate subsequent game outcomes using the set of paylines". The claim features describes a modification to the operation of the gaming device itself. Specifically, Specifically, inserting one or more paylines for the arranged plurality of game symbols alters how the device evaluates outcomes (i.e., which symbol combinations are evaluated as winning), because subsequent outcomes are evaluated using the updated set of paylines. This is a technological reconfiguration of the gaming machine processing logic and operational state rather than a method of organizing human activity or a mental process. As explained in Ex parte Desjardins, claims directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or technology are not directed to an abstract idea when the claim as a whole is evaluated as an ordered combination and not at an overgeneralized "game rules" level that ignores specific claimed requirements. The claims here are directed to an improvement in the gaming machine functionality regarding its ability to dynamically reconfigure its evaluation structure.
Even if, arguendo, the claim were considered directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1, Claim 1 satisfies Step 2A, Prong 2 because any alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. The claims recite a solution to the specific technical problem of facilitating "line insertion features" to enable player-selected volatility by changing the operative payline set used for outcome evaluation (see, e.g., Paragraphs [0019] and [0020] of the present specification). The Office Action asserted that users not enjoying game play features is not a technical problem. Applicant respectfully submits that the claims do not recite enjoyment but rather the specific technical mechanism of inserting one or more paylines used to achieve the volatility reconfiguration. This reflects the improvement described in the specification where the line insertion features provide a unique technical solution to facilitate gameplay features. The claims integrate the exception by requiring the specific step of reconfiguring the game via line insertion. This imposes meaningful limits on the claim scope and improves the technical operation of the device.”
The Examiner disagrees and find the applicant’s argument that “the line insertion features provide a unique technical solution to facilitate gameplay features” is not persuasive as it does not appear to provide a technical solution to a technical problem nor does it provide an improvement upon the functioning of the gaming machine or the gaming technology implementing such gameplay. The Examiner finds the “line insertion” as merely tweaking of game play (ie: implementing game rules) in how a game is being presented to a player. In this case, changing game rules in how a game is being presented to a player does not mean that there is a technical improvement in the actual functioning of the gaming machine or gaming technology at hand.
Regarding Ex Parte Desjardins, in which the Appeals Review Panel had determined that the claims were directed not to an abstract idea but to a practical application in which the claims were therefore considered to be directed towards eligible subject matter. However, it is of the Examiner’s opinion that the claims being directed towards a practical application was because it was determined that the claims presented an improvement in the operation with regard to machine learning model by enabling continual learning across tasks while reducing storage requirements and system complexity. In this case, the Examiner does not see the similarities to Ex Parte Desjardins (ie: providing improvement by enabling continual learning across tasks) with regard the instant application. Therefore, the Examiner believes Ex Parte Desjardins does not apply and is therefore not a persuasive argument towards the claimed invention being considered a practical application and/or improving the functioning of a machine.
“Moreover, under Step 2B, the claims as a whole embody an inventive concept. The ordered combination of elements includes the automatic determination of a previous award, the receipt of a specific volatility selection, and the responsive reconfiguration of the game by inserting paylines to evaluate subsequent outcomes. This is not a routine or conventional use of a generic computer. The Office Action cited Saffari as teaching a conventional gaming machine. However, the Office Action cited Saffari for conventional gaming machine components (e.g., "processor," "memory," and "display") and did not allege that Saffari teaches or suggests "responsive to the received volatility selection value," "reconfigur[ing] the wagering game by inserting one or more paylines into a set of paylines ... and evaluat[ing] subsequent game outcomes using the set of paylines." Moreover, the Office Action did not specifically identify or support with evidence that this particular claimed ordered combination is well-understood, routine, or conventional. This specific arrangement improves the technical operation of the gaming device and transforms it from a static machine into one that dynamically adapts its evaluation structure based on user interaction.”
The Examiner disagrees and believes the elements disclosed are all directed towards well-known, well-understood, routine, and conventional elements found in general-purpose computers. In this case, all the elements disclosed are used for implementing an abstract idea (ie: automatically determine an award amount that the user has won in a previous wagering game; and set the volatility selection value of the award amount to correspond to a user defined volatility; responsive to the volatility selection value being a reward selection, automatically locking the award amount for subsequent portions of a wagering session; responsive to the volatility selection value being a risk selection, wagering using the award amount for subsequent portions of the wagering session; and automatically determining an award threshold value that corresponds to an award amount that a player has received during the wagering session.).
Reiterating from the rejection above, there appears to be no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology; there is no additional element that applies or uses 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; the additional elements merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JEFFREY WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached on (571) 270-1344. 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.
/JEFFREY K WONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights