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
Status of the Application
This Office-Action acknowledges the Amendment filed on 2/11/2026 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 1-20 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 1-20 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:
An electronic game machine (EGM), comprising: a user interface comprising a user input and a user output;
a processor; and memory comprising instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to:
instruct the user interface to render, for a first play of a grid-based game arranged as an array of cells rendered on the user interface, i) randomly selected symbols in randomized positions within the array of cells in a first part of the user interface, and ii) a visualization of default pay tables for at least some of the randomly selected symbols in a second part of the user interface; instruct the user interface to render, in response to a wild symbol being rendered to the array of cells for the first play, a first update to the visualization in the second part of the user interface to show an increased pay table for a randomly selected nonwild symbol rendered to the array of cells for the first play; instruct the user interface to render an overlay on the first part of the user interface to show an amount of credits gained for the first play that is based on the increased pay table; and after instructing the user interface to render the overlay and for a second play of the grid-based game subsequent to the first play, instruct the user interface to render a second update to the visualization to show that the increased pay table has returned to the default pay table for the randomly selected nonwild symbol in the first play.Claim 11 recites: A system, comprising:
a user interface comprising a user input and a user output; a processor; and memory comprising instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to:
instruct the user interface to render, for a first play of a grid-based game arranged as an array of cells rendered on the user interface, i) randomly selected symbols in randomized positions within the array of cells in a first part of the user interface, and ii) a visualization of default pay tables for at least some of the randomly selected symbols in a second part of the user interface; instruct the user interface to render, in response to a wild symbol rendered to the array of cells for the first play, a first update to the visualization in the second part of the user interface to show an increased pay table for a randomly selected nonwild symbol rendered to the array of cells for the first play; instruct the user interface to render an overlay on the first part of the user interface to show an amount of credits gained for the first play based
Claim 16 recites:
A method, comprising:
instructing a user interface to render, for a first play of a grid-based game arranged as an array of cells rendered on the user interface, i) randomly selected symbols in randomized positions within the array of cells in a first part of the user interface, and ii) a visualization of default pay tables for the randomly selected symbols in a second part of the user interface; instructing the user interface to render, in response to a wild symbol is being rendered to the array of cells for the first play, a first update to the visualization in the second part of the user interface, to show an increased pay table for a randomly selected nonwild symbol rendered to the array of cells for the first play; instructing the user interface to render an overlay on the first part of the user interface to show an amount of credits gained for the first play that is based on the increased pay table; and after instructing the user interface to the overlay and for a second play of the grid-based game subsequent to the first play, instructing the user interface to render a second update to the visualization to show that the increased pay table has returned to the default pay table for the randomly selected nonwild symbol in the first play.
[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)”]
According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) "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." (Emphasis added)
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 gaming machine) in which rules or instructions for the gaming machine is being implemented (ie: randomly selecting, when a wild symbol is rendered to the array of cells for a first play, a nonwild symbol rendered to the array of cells for the first play and increasing a pay table of the randomly selected nonwild symbol by a multiplier.)
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 claims 1, 11 and 16 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 and display.
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:
Rehill et al., US 10726678 discloses that it is well known to one of ordinary skill in the graphical user interfaces are arranged to display information regarding a program, software application or other element associated with a computing device (Col 22, lines 44-47); Walker et al., US 20080039190 discloses that graphical user interfaces, including graphical buttons provided via touch screens, menus, etc., are well known in the art (paragraph 101); Cockrell, Jr., US 20070057464, discloses that computer systems for implementing games can be suitable general-purpose computers having a processor and memory and are well known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 69); Thomas, US 20160358424, teaches that reel-based games utilize symbols for display on an array for generating outcomes are well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 4),
Rinaldis, US 20150072750, discloses that a display device of a casino-style gaming machine may comprise a digital display of any serviceable type, many of which are well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art of the computer, television and gaming industries (paragraph 34).
Vancura, US 20120064961, discloses that, in general, the operating hardware and software necessary to implement a casino-based game is well known and is based on one or more communicatively interconnected controllers, processors, or microprocessors found within such a casino game (paragraph 26).
Reeves et al., US 20160063799 discloses that graphical user interfaces (GUIs) are arranged to display information regarding a program, software application or other element associated with a computing device and are well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 82).
Saffari, US 20030050111, discloses 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).
Hardy et al., US 20080146346, discloses that a random number generator is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art determining outcomes of game play when playing a game (paragraph 186).
The above helps to suggest that the claimed components are no more than generic well-known components. 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 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 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 2/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant presented arguments, stating “…that claim 1 is distinguishable from the claims in the above cases and the other cases noted in the MPEP as having claims directed to methods for organizing human activity. For example, claim 1 does not attempt to mitigate settlement risk, price optimize, or use a mark to communication information about an object. Moreover, claim 1 is not directed to a financial instrument designed to mitigate risk or placing an order based on market information. Claim 1 is also distinguishable from the claim at issue in In re Smith which recites a series of steps to be performed by a dealer of a card game. Indeed, claim 1 does not recite rules of a game to be performed by a human, but instead recites various rendering steps that update a visualization on a display in a specific manner. Contrary to the Examiner's position, the recited steps are not rules for a game, but steps to change visualizations on a user interface based on certain triggers in order to directly inform the user of progress/happenings within the grid-based game. Rendering updates to a user interface to inform a user of progress in a particular scenario, whether related to an electronic game or not, are not rules. Indeed, the rejection has not alleged and Applicant is not aware of a claim that involves instructing user interfaces to render visualizations to a display which the courts have held to fall within certain methods of organizing human activity or any other category of abstract idea.”…and also stated “Claim 1 is also distinguishable over the claim at issue in In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V, 911 F.3d 1157, 1161, 129 USPQ2d 1008, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018), which is directed to a rules for playing a game of dice and does not involve instructing a user interface to rendering anything, let alone updates to visualizations and overlays. Indeed, instructing a user interface to render symbols, updates for visualizations, and overlays in the manner claimed is not analogous to instructions for playing a dice game and/or a set of rules for playing a game. Stated another way, instructing a user interface to render visible images in a specific sequence does not correspond to rules for a game.
For at least the above reasons, the claimed sequence of steps distinguishes from claims identified in the MPEP and USPTO 101 guidance as being directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. Rather, the claims recite specific device outputs which involve instructing a user interface to render randomly selected symbols, updates to a visualization, and an overlay.” (pages 7-9)
The Examiner disagrees. Abstract ideas, including a set of rules for a game, may be patent-eligible if they contain an "inventive concept' sufficient to “transform” a claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. In this case, the Examiner does not believe there to be an inventive concept sufficient to transformed the claimed invention (ie: randomly selecting, when a wild symbol is rendered to the array of cells for a first play, a nonwild symbol rendered to the array of cells for the first play and increasing a pay table of the randomly selected nonwild symbol by a multiplier.) into a patent-eligible application. To further elaborate, even though the most recent amendment removes human interaction (ie: removal of player input for initiating game play.), the Examiner believes the claimed invention 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. Reiterating from response to similar arguments previously before, the Examiner believes that, even in a scenario in which are game rules related to a dice game being implemented, an added limitation of “rendering” such game rules on a display would not amount to eligible subject matter. In this case, displaying game rules, especially using well-known components such as a display device, is merely an extra-solution activity. In other words, the Examiner believes the claimed invention continues to be directed towards game rules utilizing general-purpose computer components to implement such game rules and is therefore considered ineligible subject matter. Furthermore, the Examiner had relied upon examples in 2106.05(a) of the MPEP, which states:
Limitations that the courts have found to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Improvements to the functioning of a computer, e.g., a modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage, as discussed in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (see MPEP § 2106.05(a));
ii. Improvements to any other technology or technical field, e.g., a modification of conventional rubber-molding processes to utilize a thermocouple inside the mold to constantly monitor the temperature and thus reduce under- and over-curing problems common in the art, as discussed in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981) (see MPEP § 2106.05(a));
iii. Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, e.g., a Fourdrinier machine (which is understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) that is arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web, as discussed in Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923) (see MPEP § 2106.05(b));
iv. Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, e.g., a process that transforms raw, uncured synthetic rubber into precision-molded synthetic rubber products, as discussed in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 184, 209 USPQ at 21 (see MPEP § 2106.05(c));
v. Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, e.g., a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components for filtering Internet content, as discussed in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
vi. Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, e.g., an immunization step that integrates an abstract idea of data comparison into a specific process of immunizing that lowers the risk that immunized patients will later develop chronic immune-mediated diseases, as discussed in Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1066-68, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1499-1502 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
However, the Examiner did not find any similarities to the examples provided to the claimed invention that was found persuasive as qualifying the claimed invention as “significantly more” and therefore believe the claimed invention is not incorporated into a practical application. Furthermore, the case law the Examiner found the claimed invention similar to is In re Smith, wherein general-purpose computer components, such as a processor is used for implementing game rules (ie: randomly selecting, when a wild symbol is rendered to the array of cells for a first play, a nonwild symbol rendered to the array of cells for the first play and increasing a pay table of the randomly selected nonwild symbol by a multiplier), in which a general-purpose device, such as a display, is used for display such game rules.
Applicant also cited Example 23 of the USPTO’s 101 guidance and Ex Parte Desjardins as further arguments. (page 11)
The Examiner disagrees. In this case, Example 23 is directed towards a graphical user interface for detecting when text on a screen is being obscured by another window and relocating that text elsewhere. For Example 23, it was determined that there was a technical solution being provided because it provided a computer-centric solution to a graphical problem by improving how a user interacting with a graphical user interface. Furthermore, with regard to Example 23, the graphical user interface comprised multiple windows that would continuously monitor the boundaries of said windows in order to determine if there are any overlaps between such windows wherein the texts of those underlying windows that are being obscured by an overlapping window so that the obscured texts would be made viewable. In this case, the Examiner does not believe that the graphical user interface of the claimed invention is similar to Example 23 because the graphical user interface for the claimed invention is merely being implemented for presenting graphics to a user in terms of gaming (ie: rendering gaming graphics that pertain to game play.) and not being used for determining if there are underlying texts being obscured so that they could be made viewable.
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.
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 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 at (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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715