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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/24/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges receipt of amendment/arguments filed 09/24/2025. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below. Claims 1 and 3-20 remain pending, no Claims have been newly added, and no Claims have been currently canceled. Currently, Claims 1, 11, 14, and 19 have been amended. No new matter appears to have been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 5 states, “wherein incrementing to the timer comprises resetting the timer.” However, this should state, “wherein incrementing the timer comprises resetting the timer,” which would be consistent with similar claim 16.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 3-20 is/are directed towards a statutory category they are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1, Yes).
Claim 11 recites, in part, the limitations of […] currency […] initiates gameplay; […], causes a reel spin of a reel; […]; […]; and […]: in response to receiving input […], initiate a first reel spin of the reel; initiate a timer and a spin counter after the first reel spin of the reel, wherein […] display the timer and the spin counter; determine if the timer is still active and if a maximum number of reel spins has been reached; after one or more reel spins occurring subsequent to the first reel spin, if the timer is still active, and if the maximum number of spins has not been reached, then increment the timer and the spin counter; when the maximum number of reel spins is reached, if the timer is still active, then determine a spin discount; display […] a first option for the spin discount to be applied to a next reel spin and a second option for the spin discount to be accumulated; receive input […] of a user’s selection of the first option or the second option; and wherein the input comprises the first option, apply the determined spin discount to the next reel spin, and when the input comprises the second option, store a record associated with the spin discount […]. These limitations, individually and in combination, describe or set forth the abstract idea in claim 11 (substantially similar to claims 1 and 14). The Examiner notes that the specific limitations that describe or set forth the abstract idea in Step 2A Prong 1 can be identified either individually or in combination (see p. 54 of 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims recite limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer,” and that “courts have found requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The Examiner also notes that “both product claims (e.g., computer system, computer-readable medium, etc.) and process claims may recite mental processes” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements identified below do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
The claims also recite limitations that are considered a fundamental economic principle or practice (e.g., relating to commerce and economy), commercial interactions, business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The Examiner notes that certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (see p. 5 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility).
Therefore, the claims fall under the following enumerated groupings of abstract ideas: mental processes (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion)), and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)) (Step 2A, Prong 1, Yes).
Claim 11 recites the additional element(s) of “A computational device comprising: at least one of a card reader to receive a player’s card, a bill acceptor to accept currency, and a ticket acceptor to accept a bar-coded ticket; a bet button […]; a user interface; a processor coupled with the user interface; and a computer-readable storage medium, coupled with the processor, comprising instructions that are executable by the processor, the instructions when executed by the processor cause the processor to: […] the bet button […]; […], wherein the user interface associated with the computational device is modified to […]; […]; […]; […]; display on the user interface […]; receive input via the user interface […]; and […] a database. These additional element(s) are recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation are generic processor(s) and/or generic computer component(s) that perform generic computer functions. The generic processor and/or generic computer component limitation(s) are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional element(s) are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computers and/or generic computer components does not integrate the judicial exception or amount to significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Using a computer to generate data, compute a result, and return the result to a user amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—some of the most basic functions of a computer. “[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter" (see pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements also amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Further, the courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or add significantly more. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim that integrates the judicial exception in to a practical application, nor do they amount to a claim that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 2, No).
Additionally, the specification makes it clear that the computational device for initiating a timer, a spin counter, and applying a determined spin discount can be implemented on a generic computer.
[0012] Embodiments of the present disclosure will be described in connection with a computational device and, in particular, a computational device, such as a slot machine or Electronic Gaming Machine (EGM), that implements speed spin discount. While embodiments of the present disclosure will be described in connection with the example of a slot machine or EGM implementing a discount for speed spinning (e.g., multiple spins within a certain amount of time), it should be appreciated that embodiments of the present disclosure are not so limited. For instance, other types of computational devices, such as portable user devices, smartphones, tablets, laptops, Personal Computers (PCs), wearable devices, etc. may be used to implement a discount for speed spinning as part of a game as described herein…
As such, the computational device, for implementing the abstract idea, may require no more than generic, conventional, and well-known computer devices such as a general purpose computer (as evidenced in Para. 12).
In Step 2B, the additional element(s) also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong 2. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. However, unless an Examiner had previously concluded under revised Step 2A that an additional element was insignificant extra-solution activity, they should reevaluate that conclusion in Step 2B (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim that integrates the judicial exception in to a practical application, nor do they amount to a claim that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2B, No).
Furthermore, the computational device including, at least one of a card reader to receive a player’s card, a bill acceptor to accept currency, and a ticket acceptor to accept a bar-coded ticket, and a bet button, as provided in amended claims 1, 11, and 14, can relate to components having features that are generic, conventional, and well-known in the art of slot machines that represent extra-solution activity.
For example, Chamberlain et al. (2004/0087360 A1) discloses a gaming device 10 is a slot machine having the controls, displays and features of a conventional slot machine, wherein gaming devices are also equipped with electronic funds transfer control units that control a card reader, a keypad and a display for enabling a player to enter the player's account number, transaction type (i.e., credit or debit), desired transfer amount and personal identification number (PIN), place the player tracking card in the EFT card reader 115 to receive such credits, remove the player tracking card from the EFT reader and then place the credited player card into card reader 115 associated with game processor 38 for play, and the ticket accepting gaming devices must now contain a ticket reader as well as the ticket printer (See at least Para. 12, Para. 20, Para. 47, Para. 49, Para. 60, Para. 72, and Fig. 1 of Chamberlain).
Thus, Claims 11, 1, and 14 are rejected as shown above. Additionally, Claims 3-10, 12-13, and 15-20 also recite limitations that are similar to the abstract ideas identified with respect to Claim 11 above (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes). Claims 3-10, 12-13, and 15-20 do not recite any additional elements other than those recited in Claim 11. Therefore, for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 11, Claims 3-10, 12-13, and 15-20 also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Prior Art
The Examiner notes that after a thorough search on the claims as currently amended, the claims currently overcome prior art. The closest prior art found to date are the following:
Taylor (US 2004/0102238 A1) discloses the concept of pressing a game activation button, a timer begins counting down and the reels spin, all reels spin and stop sequentially, the resting symbols displayed are evaluated against a paytable to determine any winners, wherein the clock timer continues to run non-stop, and the player presses the game activation button again initiating the next game, and the cycle repeats until the game clock expires.
Taylor (US 2008/0064491 A1) discloses the concept of a game may reward players for achieving a number of spins within a session, and a special counter means may be used to this end, wherein in games employing a count-down clock or timing means, an optimal number of spins is found which is used to find the maximum statistical average payback possible to players.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant states: “The claims are rejected as falling within the mental processes group. (See Office Action, pg. 3). The claims do not recite any steps which can be performed in a human
mind. Each feature of each claim is necessarily tied to a computer element. It would be overly broad to interpret any step of any claim as being a mental process under § 101. For example, game play is initiated by one of insertion of a player’s card into a card reader of the computational device, insertion of currency into a bill acceptor of the computational device, and insertion of a bar-coded ticket into a ticket acceptor of the computational device; a reel spin is initiated by engaged a bet button, and a record of the spin discount may be stored in a database.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations outlined above, that exclude the additional elements, are limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind, and are considered certain methods of organizing human activity. The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer,” and that “courts have found requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The additional elements identified above are being used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. For instance, receiving input information, displaying information, and storing information, such as, a card reader, a button, a timer, a counter, and a database, is simply what computers do. The advance lies entirely in the realm of the abstract idea.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant states: “A claim that includes conventional elements “may still integrate an exception into a practical application, thereby satisfying the subject matter eligibility requirement of
Section 101.” (See 2019 Guidance, 84 FR at 55). The 2019 Guidance clarifies that “a claim is not ‘directed to’ a judicial exception if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.” (See 2019 Guidance, 84 FR at 50, col. 3). In other words, “[o]nly when a claim recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate the exception into a practical application is the claim ‘directed to’ a judicial exception. (See 2019 Guidance, 84 FR at 50, col. 1).
While the presently pending claims recite no judicial exceptions, as discussed
above, the claims are directed to a practical application.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims, as shown above, are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Paragraph 2 of Applicant’s specification discusses, “Operators continually improve the functionality and game play features of gaming machines to enhance overall player/user experience” and “Any type of game play feature that presents the player/user with an additional opportunity to win and/or discount is often viewed as desirable and can lead to increased play of the gaming machine.” Thus, the Applicant’s cited paragraph appears to be discussing an improvement or change to the prior art method of game play features and not a technical solution to a technical problem. Therefore, as described in MPEP § 2106.05(f), additional elements that invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process will generally not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. See, e.g., Versata Development Group v. SAP America, 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must "play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly"). See MPEP 2106.05(b)(II).
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant states: “Like Example 37, if the Examiner determines the pending claims recite an abstract idea, the alleged abstract idea of the instant claims is integrated into a practical
application. For example, the additional elements of Claim | recite a specific manner of modifying a user interface to display a timer and spin counter based on when a spin counter is triggered, which provides specific improvements over prior systems. As described in the Specification, the method of Claim | provides many benefits over conventional systems. Claim | enables a new type of interaction with a device (e.g., playing with a spin discount), leading to a unique user experience that may result in increased game play.
For at least these reasons, the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §101
should be reconsidered and withdrawn.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. “Examiners are reminded that examples issued by the Office in conjunction with the Interim Eligibility Guidance are intended to show exemplary analyses only and should not be used as a basis for a subject matter eligibility rejection or relied upon in the same manner as a decision from a court” (see p. 2 of May 2016 Memorandum: Formulating a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection and Evaluating the Applicant’s Response to a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection). Additionally, the facts of the application here do not uniquely match the facts at issue in Example 37. As stated above, displaying information, such as, a timer and a counter, is simply what computers do. The advance lies entirely in the realm of the abstract idea.
For instance, the realm of abstract ideas is not limited by using a computer. There is no indication that attributes the above cited elements of, a card reader, a button, displaying a timer and a counter after a first reel spin, storing information in a database, are to an improvement in any technology or functionality, to implementing the abstract idea with a particular machine that is integral to the claim, which effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, which applies the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, or which otherwise indicates that the claimed invention integrates the abstract idea into a "practical application," as that phrase is used in the 2019 Revised Guidance.
Additionally, the Applicant states, “which provides specific improvements over prior systems” and “Claim 1 enables a new type of interaction with a device (e.g., playing with a spin discount), leading to an unique user experience that may result in increased game play” which appear to reference novelty. However, "[L]ack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activities. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101". (MPEP 2106.05(I)). Additionally, referring to a “unique user experience” as referenced above, appears to be an improvement or change to the prior art method of game play features and not a technical solution to a technical problem.
Furthermore, the limitations have been viewed as an ordered combination and does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim that integrates the judicial exception in to a practical application, nor do they amount to a claim that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The claimed invention encompasses the process of rules/steps for operating and displaying a timer and a counter in relation to a number of reels spun and determining when to apply a spin discount to the next reel spin. These steps are carried out by conventional and well-known components. However, each of these elements defines steps of game rules in conjunction with field of use and/or extra-solution activities, which are not patent eligible under the framework set forth by the Supreme Court in at least the Alice decision, nor under the recently updated 2019 PEG guidelines outlined above. In light of the above analysis, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the claimed invention fails to demonstrate patent-eligibility.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHASE E LEICHLITER whose telephone number is (571)270-7109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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, David Lewis can be reached at (571)272-7673. 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.
/CHASE E LEICHLITER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715