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 .
Applicant’s Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 06/18/2026. Presently, claims 8-11, 13-18, and 20 are pending.
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 8-11, 13-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method of operating a gaming machine, the gaming machine comprising a gaming cabinet, a presentation assembly, and game-logic circuitry secured within a locked box, the game-logic circuitry comprising a processor and memory, the method comprising: executing, by the processor, an authentication program to establish an authenticated state for game execution; presenting, by the presentation assembly while operating in the authenticated state, a plurality of reels, an array, and first and second persistent elements corresponding to first and second data records stored in the memory; spinning and stopping the plurality of reels to land symbols in the array; in response to the landed symbols including only one of a first accumulation symbol or a second accumulation symbol: modifying, by the processor, a corresponding one of the first or second data records in the memory; transforming, by the processor, the modified data record into a first set of animation control signals for the presentation assembly to animate an addition to its associated persistent element; and randomly determining, by the game-logic circuitry, whether to trigger a basic bonus based on the landed only one of the first or second accumulation symbol, and conducting the basic bonus if triggered, the basic bonus comprising a set of free games with a single enhancement applied thereto; in response to the landed symbols including both the first and second accumulation symbols but not a combined first/second accumulation symbol: modifying, by the processor, both the first and second data records in the memory; transforming, by the processor, the modified first and second data records into a second set of animation control signals for the presentation assembly to animate an addition to the first and second persistent elements; and randomly determining, by the game-logic circuitry, whether to trigger a super bonus based on the landed first and second accumulation symbols, and conducting the super bonus if triggered, the super bonus being distinct from the basic bonus, the super bonus comprising a set of free games with a combination of two enhancements applied thereto, the combination of two enhancements including the single enhancement of the basic bonus and a further enhancement different from the single enhancement of the basic bonus: and in response to the landed symbols including the combined first/second accumulation symbol: modifying, by the processor, both the first and second data records in the memory; and transforming, by the processor, the modified first and second data records into a third set of animation control signals for the presentation assembly to animate an addition to the first and second persistent elements; randomly determining, by the game-logic circuitry, whether to trigger the super bonus based on the landed combined first/second accumulation symbol, and conducting the super bonus if triggered. The above underlined portions are rules for managing a wagering game and are deemed to be certain methods of human activity (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A)). If it is found that the animating goes beyond just an abstract idea, these elements are found to be extra solution activity as they are merely putting a “flair” on how the information is displayed. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only thing that is done with the abstract idea is putting it in a certain technological environment, which is claimed as a basic wagering game machine (See MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are generic computing parts such as a processor, memory, and display. With regard authenticating software and game logic circuitry this is also well known as evidenced by US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0335835 (0023-0027; 0030-0031). These paragraphs are nearly verbatim to the paragraphs that Applicant is now relying on from their own specification thus showing that these are merely boiler plate that is copied and pasted into applications (as there are MULTIPLE applications with the exact same language). Additionally, the dependent claims have been analyzed and do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claims. It is noted that electromechanical reels are also well known in the art (See US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0190545 to Lauzon 0003).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-11, 13-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. With regard to the independent claims, using claim 8 as an example, Applicant claims in the middle of the claim, “and randomly determining, by the game-logic circuitry, whether to trigger a super bonus based on the landed first and second accumulation symbols, and conducting the super bonus if triggered,” and then again at the end of the claim, Applicant again claims “randomly determining, by the game-logic circuitry, whether to trigger the super bonus based on the landed combined first/second accumulation symbol, and conducting the super bonus if triggered.” It is unclear if the super bonus is run twice, if there are two separate determinations, if this is a typo, or if there is some other interpretation of these two instances of the same claim limitations in the claim. All dependent claims are rejected as depending from a previously rejected claim. With regard to the prior art, claims are treated as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8-11, 13-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Application Publication No. 2020/0074814 to Marks in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0335835 to Castro.
With regard to claim 8, Marks discloses a method of operating a gaming machine, the gaming machine comprising a gaming cabinet (0076), a presentation assembly (0078), and game-logic circuitry the game-logic circuitry comprising a processor and memory (0208), the method comprising: presenting, by the presentation assembly a plurality of reels, an array, and first and second persistent elements corresponding to first and second data records stored in the memory (fig. 11A; 0036-0037; 0234); spinning and stopping the plurality of reels to land symbols in the array (0183); in response to the landed symbols including only one of a first accumulation symbol or a second accumulation symbol: modifying, by the processor, a corresponding one of the first or second data records in the memory (fig. 11A; 0035-0039; 0234-0235; 0242-0243); transforming, by the processor, the modified data record into a first set of animation control signals for the presentation assembly to animate an addition to its associated persistent element (fig. 11A; 0035-0039; 0234-0235; 0242-0243); and randomly determining, by the game-logic circuitry, whether to trigger a basic bonus based on the landed only one of the first or second accumulation symbol, and conducting the basic bonus if triggered, the basic bonus comprising a set of free games with a single enhancement applied thereto (fig. 11A; 0035-0039; 0234-0235; 0242-0243); in response to the landed symbols including both the first and second accumulation symbols but not a combined first/second accumulation symbol: modifying, by the processor, both the first and second data records in the memory; transforming, by the processor, the modified first and second data records into a second set of animation control signals for the presentation assembly to animate an addition to the first and second persistent elements (fig. 11A; 0035-0039; 0234-0235; 0242-0243); and in response to the landed symbols including the combined first/second accumulation symbol: modifying, by the processor, both the first and second data records in the memory (fig. 11A; 0035-0039; 0234-0235; 0242-0243); and transforming, by the processor, the modified first and second data records into a third set of animation control signals for the presentation assembly to animate an addition to the first and second persistent elements (fig. 11A; 0035-0039; 0234-0235; 0242-0243).
Marks does not appear to explicitly disclose a super bonus different from a basic bonus. However, Marks does disclose that a symbol could have more than one designation (0235) and that a bonus can happen based upon a symbol being shown (0243-0244). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that if a symbol could have two features then also it would be obvious to trigger two games. Thus, Marks teaches and randomly determining, by the game-logic circuitry, whether to trigger a super bonus based on the landed first and second accumulation symbols, and conducting the super bonus if triggered, the super bonus being distinct from the basic bonus, the super bonus comprising a set of free games with a combination of two enhancements applied thereto, the combination of two enhancements including the single enhancement of the basic bonus and a further enhancement different from the single enhancement of the basic bonus (fig. 11A; 0035-0039; 0234-0235; 0242-0243) and randomly determining, by the game-logic circuitry, whether to trigger the super bonus based on the landed combined first/second accumulation symbol, and conducting the super bonus if triggered (fig. 11A; 0035-0039; 0234-0235; 0242-0243). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to make such a combination in order to allow for greater rewards to the user and thus make the game more entertaining and enticing for players to play, which in turn could result in greater profits to the operator.
Marks does not explicitly disclose a locked box and authentication program. However, Castro teaches the gaming machine including a gaming cabinet and game-logic circuitry secured within a locked box (0027), and executing, by the processor, an authentication program to establish an authenticated state for game execution (0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the teachings of Castro with the disclosure of Marks in order to ensure the security of the gaming machine as well as ensure that it meets Nevada gaming standards (See, e.g., Marks at 0031).
With regard to claim 9, Marks discloses, wherein in response to the landed symbols including the combined first/second accumulation symbol and one or more of the first accumulation symbol or the second accumulation symbol (0041; 0235): animating an addition of the combined first/second accumulation symbol to the first and second persistent elements and an addition of the one or more of the first accumulation symbol or the second accumulation symbol to its associated persistent element (0036-0041); and randomly determining, by the game-logic circuitry, whether or not to trigger the super bonus based on the combined first/second accumulation symbol and the one or more of the first accumulation symbol or the second accumulation symbol, and then conducting the third bonus if triggered (0036-0041; 0235; 0242-0243).
With regard to claim 10, Marks discloses wherein each of the first accumulation symbol, the second accumulation symbol, and the combined first/second accumulation symbol contributes to a likelihood that the game-logic circuitry triggers a bonus when it is among the landed symbols in the array (0242-0243).
With regard to claim 11, Marks discloses wherein the gaming machine is regulatorily approved and primarily dedicated to playing a wagering game (0071; 0091).
With regard to claim 13, Marks discloses wherein the randomly determining operations are independent of prior wagering game cycles (0091).
With regard to claim 14, Marks discloses wherein the animating operations include providing a visual indication of accumulating value at the persistent element to which the accumulation symbol is added (0234).
Claims 15-18, and 20 are mirrored claims to claims 8-11, 13, and 14 and are rejected in like manner.
Claim 15 adds in a random number generator, which is disclosed by Marks (0091).
Response to Arguments
With regard to the rejection based upon 35 USC 101, Applicant argues, that the claim incorporate a specific machine and it “conducts a structurally different free-game enhancement package depending on which symbol condition has been detected,” (Arguments, page 8). However, as shown above the specific machine is well-known in the art. Additionally, the structure does not actually change, rather just the rules implemented change what happens in the game, much like any other rules of managing a game. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found to be convincing.
Applicant’s arguments regarding step 2A (pages 9-11) are also not found to be convincing. Applicant argues that there is a “a particular technological pathway,” (Arguments, page 9). However, this appears to be Applicant trying to use buzz words for overcoming the 101, which the Supreme Court specifically advised against in Alice. There is no actual different “pathway” rather just rules for how the game is managed, and updating data structures to implement those rules is merely applying those rules into a technological environment and thus does not suddenly transform the claims into patent eligible subject matter.
Applicant’s arguments of reduced processing power (Arguments, page 10), have been considered but the claim limitations presented, while they MAY results in that do not inherently do so in their present form and as such does not overcome the present rejection.
Applicant’s arguments that the claims are organizing as “machine-control level, not at the game-rule level,” (Arguments, page 11) appear to be arguing that the claim should be eligible because of the draftsman skill. The Supreme Court warned against this in Alice.
Applicant’s arguments that the present claims are distinguished from In re Smith and In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V. (Arguments, page 11), have been considered but are not found to be convincing. Merely because Applicant’s game is different from the game presented is not enough to now make it patent eligible. Rather, to the contrary, there is no evidence in the courts nor in a precedential PTAB decision that Applicant can rely on for support that their current claims should be held to be patent eligible. As such, the MPEP is clear that rules for managing a wagering game is an abstract idea. The MPEP does not present distinguish that these rules are limited only to specific facts of In Re Smith.
Applicant then argues step 2B and appears to be stating that because of the combination of the gaming machine AND the abstract idea are not found to be well known that the claims must be significantly more (Arguments, pages 12-13). This argument is in no way found to be convincing as it is not the standard for determining what is well-known routine or conventional. Rather only the elements that are not part of the abstract idea have to be shown as routine and conventional. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not found to be convincing.
Finally, with regard to the 101, Applicant argues that “the amended claims present the kind of close eligibility question for which the [Charles Kim] memorandum instructs that a rejection should not be maintained unless ineligibility is more likely than not,” (Arguments, pages 13-14). It is found by the Office that the claims are more likely to be ineligible, and thus Applicant’s argument is not convincing.
Applicant’s arguments related to the prior art have been considered and are addressed in the rejection above. While the claims still rely on the same references, the explanation and interpretation have been revised slightly based upon Applicant’s amendments to the claims. For brevity, rather than repeating the rational explain above Applicant is referred to the 35 USC 103 rejection where different parts of Marks are combined in a manner that one of ordinary skill would do.
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 Jay Liddle whose telephone number is (571)270-1226. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, 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.
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights