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 02/06/2026, claims 2, 4-7, 10-11, 13-17 and 19-25 remain pending, of which, 7, 14 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 2, 4-7, 10-11, 13-17 and 19-25 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 7 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 14, having substantially similar features, was also analyzed and to which the following conclusion is also applicable:
7. A gaming device, comprising:
one or more display devices; and
a processor executing instructions of a memory, wherein the processor includes a speed controller and wherein execution of the instructions causes the processor to control the one or more display devices to:
present a base game outcome for a play of a base game by a vertical spinning of base game reels, wherein the base game reels present symbols of the base game outcome at base game display positions (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
present a replacement of a first quantity of the base game reels with a second quantity of the feature game reels in response to a feature game trigger of the base game outcome, wherein the second quantity of the feature game reels is greater than the first quantity of the base game reels, and wherein a horizontal width of each feature game reel is narrower than a horizontal width of each base game reel (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
generate a random number using a random number generator (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes);
present a feature game outcome for a play of a feature game by a vertical spinning of feature game reels at a first speed controlled by the speed controller, wherein the feature game reels present symbols of the feature game outcome at feature game display positions, and wherein the feature game reels include at least a first vertical segment that is randomly selected based on the generated random number and that is to be temporarily presented with an initial value and upgraded to a final value (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
present, during the base game and the feature game, a horizontal spinning of a spinning wheel at a second speed controlled by the speed controller, wherein the second speed is selected by the speed controller such that an updated feature game outcome of the first vertical segment that is upgraded from the initial value to the final value completes before the first vertical segment is removed from the display device and wherein the spinning wheel comprises vertical segments that carry outcome identifiers, and wherein the speed controller slows down the horizontal spinning of the spinning wheel to align at least one of the vertical segments with at least one corresponding winning reel of the feature game reels after the spinning wheel stops spinning (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity); and
present the updated feature game outcome based on values associated with outcome identifiers for at least the first vertical segment and for each vertical segment that aligns with a corresponding winning reel of the feature game reels after the spinning wheel stops spinning (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity).
The limitations in claim 7 (and similarly claim 14) recite an abstract idea included in the groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes, connected to technology only through application thereof using generic computing elements (e.g., a gaming device, one or more display devices, a processor, a memory, etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution 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, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines:
16. One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media comprising instructions which, when executed by a processor that includes a speed controller, cause a gaming device to:
control one or more display devices to present a base game outcome for a play of a base game by a spinning of base game reels (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
control the one or more display devices to present a replacement of the base game reels with feature game reels in response to a feature game trigger, wherein each base game reel has a first horizontal width and each feature game reel has a second horizontal width that differs from the first horizontal width (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
control a random number generator to generate a random number (Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
control the one or more display devices to present a feature game outcome for a play of a feature game by a spinning of the feature game reels at a first speed controlled by the speed controller, wherein the feature game reels present symbols of the feature game outcome at feature game display positions, and wherein the feature game reels include at least a first vertical segment that is randomly selected based on the generated random number and that is to be temporarily presented with an initial value and upgraded to a final value (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
control the one or more display devices to present a horizontal spinning of a spinning wheel that spins during the base game and the feature game at a second speed controlled by the speed controller, wherein the second speed is selected by the speed controller such that an updated feature game outcome of the first vertical segment that is upgraded from the initial value to the final value completes before the first vertical segment is removed from the display device, and wherein the spinning wheel comprises vertical segments that carry outcome identifiers, and wherein the speed controller slows down the horizontal spinning of the spinning wheel to align at least one of the vertical segments with at least one corresponding winning reel of the feature game reels after the spinning wheel stops spinning (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity); (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity); and
control the one or more display devices to present the updated feature game outcome based on outcome identifiers for at least the first vertical segment and for each vertical segment of the spinning wheel that aligns with the corresponding feature game reel of the feature game reels that presents the predetermined symbol (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity).
The limitations in claim 16 recite an abstract idea included in the groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes, connected to technology only through application thereof using generic computing elements (e.g., a gaming device, one or more display devices, a memory, etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity.
According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines:
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; and
Mental Processes include concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Specifically, the instant claims include functions/limitations, as highlighted in the independent claim above, that constitute at least:
A. 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.
B. Although the independent claims (claims 7, 14 and 16) do not recite “wagering,” they do recite presenting “an updated feature game outcome based on values associated with outcome identifiers…” based on “prize identifiers for each vertical segment of the spinning wheel that aligns with a feature game reel of the feature game reels that presents a predetermined symbol”. As claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, the instant disclosure is reviewed to determine the scope of coverage supported for presenting “an updated feature game outcome based on values associated with outcome identifiers…”. The instant disclosure describes that “in response to determining an award is to be provided, increase a credit balance based on the award (See Specification, ¶6-7). Therefore, while the instant claims refer to presenting “an updated feature game outcome based on values associated with outcome identifiers”, it is clear from applicant specification that this is referring to presenting an award in conjunction with play of a wagering game. Further, the instant disclosure provides that a feature prize which is awarded based on prize identifiers which align with a vertical segment, results in a feature game award of credits are provided to a player (See Specification, ¶80-81). And regarding “presenting” the award, the instant disclosure describes that any awards which are determined to be presented, as recited in the claims, credits can be cashed out using a “payout mechanism” by a player. Because the disclosure does not enable any non-monetary prizes (such as a social prize of no value) to be distributed to a player responsive to a completed game, the only possible interpretation of presenting “an updated feature game outcome” in the claims read in light of the specification is that the presented outcome is an award of a monetary credit placed in a player’s account and that has cash value and can be dispensed in cash-equivalent form(s). This establishes that the claims are directed to a Fundamental Economic Principle or Practice.
These limitations are interpreted as at least Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices 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.
C. Concepts performed in the human mind or using pen and paper (e.g., “generate a random number using a random number generator”), 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.
Regarding dependent claims 2, 4-6, 10-11, 13, 15, 17 and 19-25:
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 Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes. For example, some dependent claims merely provide additional functions related to the playing of the game to be performed and/or Mental Steps 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 2, 4-8, 10-11, 13-17 and 19-25 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 “a gaming device, one or more display devices, a processor, a 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.
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 a gaming device, one or more display devices, a processor and a memory are well known conventional devices used to electronically implement a game as evidence by US 2003/0050111. US 2003/0050111 discloses that a conventional gaming machine comprises a controller with a memory, display and a processor to control the overall operation of the gaming machine (¶2). See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Further, dependent claim 8 includes additional elements, which would also constitute 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 a credit input device and a payout mechanism are also well-known conventional devices used to electronically implement a game as evidence by US 2010/0029381. US 2010/0029381 discloses that a conventional gaming machine comprises a credit input device and a payout mechanism to control the overall operation of the gaming machine (¶38). 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, see Remarks, filed 02/06/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that similar to the claims of Ex Parte Desjardins, the instant claims “tie the recited elements to concrete, machine-implemented control of various display elements that have a random component, variable speeds, and that align to achieve a desired outcome” (See Remarks, pg. 13-14). The examiner must respectfully disagree. Applicant’s alleged problem of “coordinating the speed, timing and alignment of the display of multiple spinning reels that include random components” is not a technical problem (e.g., a problem related to deficiencies in computer display hardware, processing technology, etc.), but rather, is a problem that is created by the rules of the game itself. An improvement in the rules or user experience of a wagering game is not an improvement to the underlying technology of computers or display devices. Further, unlike the patentable subject matter found in the claims of Ex Parte Desjardins, where technical features addressed data routing and system architectures, the instant claims merely manipulate on-screen graphics elements (i.e., base reels, feature reels, and prize wheels) according to game logic constraints. The speed controller, speed configurations, and visual transition completion before a boundaries check are merely implementation choices using conventional computer animation and display logic to execute game state changes. Because the logic and rules of a game remain classified within Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and because the claim’s execution relies entirely on routine computer and display functions, without improving the device’s technical operation, the claim fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Applicant argues that the claimed speed controller’s dual-speed selection and deceleration profiles configure how the gaming machine operates to achieve a coordinated visual alignment, thus constituting a technical improvement to computer-display functionality, similar to the eligible claims found in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco (See Remarks, pgs. 14-16). The examiner must respectfully disagree. In McRO, the patent was found eligible because it utilized a specific set of mathematical, rule-based formulas that automated a previously manual process, which directly improved the underlying technological process of 3D facial animation rendering. The claimed coordination between the feature reels and the prize wheel does not improve the efficiency or underlying technology of computer graphic generation, display processing, or rendering software mechanics. Rather, the rules being applied are purely rules of a game (i.e., slowing down a prize wheel so it stops on a specific segment that aligns with a feature game reel to determine payout for a game). Automating a custom sequence of video frames based entirely on game design criteria does not equate to the technology focused rule structures found allowable in McRO.
Applicant argues that the claimed speed controller’s dual-speed selection and deceleration profiles configure how the gaming machine operates to achieve a coordinated visual alignment, thus constituting a technical improvement to computer-display functionality, similar to the eligible claims found in Core Wireless v. LG (See Remarks, pgs. 14-16). The examiner must respectfully disagree. In Core Wireless, the claims were directed to a specific user interface structure for mobile devices that resolved an underlying problem (i.e., making small screens more efficient to navigate, thereby reducing screen real estate issues, battery consumption and processing overhead. The present claims only modify the visual content displayed to a player during play of a game. They do not improve screen navigation, data-routing efficiency or device power management. Adjusting an object’s display speed to ensure it stops at a specified point is standard UI rendering logic.
Applicant argues that the claimed speed controller’s dual-speed selection and deceleration profiles configure how the gaming machine operates to achieve a coordinated visual alignment, thus constituting a technical improvement to computer-display functionality, similar to the eligible claims found in Data Engine Techs. V. Google (See Remarks, pgs. 14-16). The examiner must respectfully disagree. In Data Engine eligibility was affirmed based on a specific tab interface because it provided a concrete, structural mechanism to solve a technical navigation workflow problem within 3D spreadsheets. In the instant claims, the constraint that a prize identifier finish upgrading before scrolling off-screen is merely a rule of a game sequence, not a technical solution to a technical problem.
Applicant argues that the claims recite an ordered combination of meaningful technical limitations that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional, and thus are “significantly more” than the exception (See Remarks, pgs. 16-17). The examiner must respectfully disagree. The additional claim elements, both individually and as an ordered combination, do no more than instruct the practitioner to “apply” the abstract game rules using a generic gaming device layout. Further, dynamically altering the rendering speed of a graphic object (e.g., accelerating or slowing a wheel segment) and checking whether an animation completes before an item moves past a boundary are conventional software operations long utilized in video graphics and game terminals. The combination does not alter the fundamental mechanism of generic computing devices or displays, but rather, it merely uses those generic devices to display a specific, custom sequence of visual frames to keep a player engaged. Automating these standard visual sequences on an electronic gaming machine interface is well-understood, routine, and conventional practice in the art. Therefore, the ordered combination of elements fails to provide “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
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