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
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 1 -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.
This subject matter eligibility analysis follows the latest guidance for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claims 1 – 10 are drawn to a method.
Claims 11 – 20 are drawn to a gaming machine.
Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1: Does the Claim recite an Abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Claims 1-10 are exemplary because they require substantially the same operative limitations of the remaining claims (reproduced below.) Examiner has underlined the claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, discussed in detail in the paragraphs that follow.
A method of operating a gaming machine, the gaming machine including a gaming cabinet and game-logic circuitry secured within a locked box inside the gaming cabinet, the game-logic circuitry including memory storing programming for a random number generator that cycles continuously in the background between games and during game play at a speed that cannot be timed by the player and a wagering game. the method comprising the operations of:
prior to executing the wagering game, executing an authentication program on the gaming machine to authenticate the programming:
conducting, by the game-logic circuitry operating in an authenticated state, a game including:
presenting by a presentation assembly, a plurality of symbol-bearing reels, an array, and a plurality of persistent elements, each persistent element having a predetermined associated game feature and an associated accumulation symbol type:
spinning and stopping the plurality of reels to land symbols from the reels in the array to produce a first outcome; and
in response to the landed symbols of the first outcome including a first accumulation symbol of a first accumulation symbol type and while operating in the authenticated state:
animating an addition of the first accumulation symbol to its associated persistent element: and
randomly determining whether or not to award the predetermined first game feature associated with the persistent element associated with the first accumulation symbol using an output generated by the random number generator; and
in response to awarding the first game feature, implementing the first game
feature via the game-logic circuitry, wherein the implementing of the first game feature comprises applying changes associated with the first game feature to game conditions currently in effect to a first set of bonus spins and removing the changes associated with the first game feature upon completion of the first set of bonus spins; and
during the first set of bonus spins, spinning and stopping the plurality of reels to land symbols from the reels in the array to produce a second outcome; and
in response to the landed symbols of the second outcome including a second accumulation symbol of a second accumulation symbol type different from the first accumulation symbol type and while operating in the authenticated state: animating an addition of the second accumulation symbol to its associated persistent element; and
randomly determining whether or not to award the predetermined second game feature associated with the persistent element associated with the second accumulation symbol using an output generated by the random number generator; and
in response to awarding the second game feature, implementing the second game feature via the game-logic circuitry, wherein the implementing of the second game feature comprises applying changes associated with the second game feature to game conditions still in effect from the application of the first game feature to a second set of bonus spins and removing the changes associated with the second game feature upon completion of the second set of bonus spins;
The claims recite italicized limitations that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, namely, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity
More specifically, under this grouping, the italicized limitations represent fundamental economic principles or practices, and managing interactions between people. For example, the italicized limitations are directed towards the wagering upon gaming outcomes and receiving a payout based upon the outcomes of a primary and secondary game by means of outcome determined by positions on reels. This represents a fundamental economic practice, namely, exchanging consideration based on odds and outcomes This also falls upon under the grouping of managing interactions between people, i.e., rules for gaming.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception?
Although the claims recite additional limitations, these limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require additional limitations as follows, (emphasis added): gaming machines, input devices, game logic circuitry, and RNG that continuously cycles, game devices/assemblies and output devices
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, since the additional limitations, individually or in combination, are indistinguishable from a computer used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, the analysis continues to Step 2B, below.
Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, as pointed out above, the claimed invention recites additional elements facilitating implementation of the abstract idea. Applicants have claimed computer input/output devices, circuitry, gaming devices/assemblies themselves and RNG that continuously cycles. However, all of these elements viewed individually and as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
As the Alice court cautioned, citing Flook, patent eligibility cannot depend simply on the draftsman’s art. Here, amending the claims with generic computing elements does not (in this Examiner’s opinion), confer eligibility.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, US 2010/0029381 establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0038] The many conventional details for operating a casino game machine 10 are well understood in the industry, including receiving money, accepting wagers, delivering payoffs, operating a casino game machine, etc. In particular, a conventional money reception device(s) 40 such as a bill acceptor, ticket acceptor, or coin slot may be utilized. Too, such conventional wager device(s) 50 such as push-buttons or a touch-screen may be utilized to initiate play. Typically, players may have special player inputs (either physical 60 and/or on-touch-screen 130) that denote a max bet, spin of the reels, a bonus bet, etc. Likewise a conventional payout device(s) 70 such as a ticket dispenser, bill dispenser, coin dispenser, etc. or any suitable payout device or devices are possible. The casino base game 20 may communicate over a network card 80 with other casino game machines, computer systems, etc. over a bus 82.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Berman US 2007/0232382 establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0060] Chance-based gaming systems such as slot machines, in which the present invention is applicable, are governed by random numbers and processors. Electronic reels are used to display the result of the digital reels, which are actually stored in computer memory and "spun" by a random number generator (RNG). RNGs are well known in the art, and may be implemented using hardware, software operable in connection with the processor 502, or some combination of hardware and software. In accordance with generally known technology in the field of slot machines, the processor 502 associated with the slot machine, under appropriate program instruction, can simulate the vertical rotation of multiple reels. Generally, the RNG continuously cycles through numbers, even when the machine is not being played. The slot machine selects, for example, three random numbers. The numbers chosen at the moment the play is initiated are typically the numbers used to determine the final outcome, i.e., the outcome is settled the moment the reels are spun. The resulting random numbers are generally divided by a fixed number. This fixed number is often thirty-two, but for slot machines with large progressive jackpots it may be even greater. After dividing, the remainders will be retained. For example, if the divisor was one-hundred twenty-eight, the machine would have three remainders ranging from zero to one-hundred twenty-seven. The remainders may be considered as stops on virtual reels. If the divisor was one-hundred twenty-eight, then the virtual reels would each have one-hundred twenty-eight stops with each stop being equally likely. Each stop on the virtual reel may be mapped to a stop on an actual reel or displayed reel image. These reel images may then be displayed on the display 520. The present invention is operable using any known RNG, and may be integrally programmed as part of the processor 502 operation, or alternatively may be a separate RNG controller 540. RNGs are well known in the art, and any type of RNG may be implemented for the standard mode of play and/or the bonus mode of play in accordance with the invention.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Gura et al US 2012/0108346 establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0056] FIG. 4 is a flow diagram illustrating various methods 411, according to example embodiments of the invention. In a basic implementation, a signal is received within a wagering game machine that enables memory clear operations to begin, such that instructions to clear the memory can be executed if all other conditions are satisfied (e.g., the source of the signal is authenticated, etc.). Once the instructions to clear the memory are executed, the same OS that includes the memory clear instructions may be initialized to restart the prior wagering game, or to begin a new wagering game. Authentication mechanisms are well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, these elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
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. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Moreover, the claims do not recite improvements to another technology or technical field. Nor, do the claims improve the functioning of the underlying computer itself -- they merely recite generic computing elements. Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing: the underlying computing elements remain the same.
Concerning preemption, the Federal Circuit has said in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of cffDNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Response to Arguments
Step 2A, Prong One: The Independent Claims Do Not Recite a Judicial Exception:
The applicant argues that the claims are not directed towards the above identified judicial exceptions such as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity: Fundamental Economic Activities and managing interactions between people. The Applicant argues that the Examiner mischaracterizes the claims too broadly in that the claims are not directed towards a wagering game and not directed towards rules for gaming. The Examiner again respectfully disagrees for the same reasoning as set forth in the above rejection and previous Office Action replies. The claims specifically claim a wagering game. Applicant attempts to differentiate between virtual currency and “real” currency when applied to wagering. However, wagering is wagering whether a user is utilizing virtual or real currency. It should be further noted that the claims are clearly directed towards rules for gaming utilizing slot reels that are spun and stopped enabling a user to accumulate various symbols and have those symbols as a result of game rules affect the operation of further bonus spins that are awarded to the player as a result of the wagering game.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The Claims Integrate Any Alleged Abstract Concept into a Practical Application
Applicant argues that the authentication software of the claims in “not generic software authentication” and cites paragraph 0028 for support. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that this authentication as supported by paragraph 0028 appears to be the very definition of generic authentication software. The Applicant fails to specify other than the quotation of paragraph 0028, how this authentication is not generic software authentication and not extra solution activity.
Regarding the applicant’s assertion that the use of RNG that cannot be timed by a human and thus cannot be carried out manual and essentially equates to a practical application of the judicial exception, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Prong Two asks the question whether additional claim elements integrate the identified judicial exception into a practical application. The Examiner notes that paragraph 0029 does not support a new RNG or an improved RNG but appears to merely recite conventional RNG and applies this conventional generic RNG to the selection of game outcomes as dictated by the rules of the game. The RNG is merely being used for its ordinary purpose such as randomly selecting game outcomes. Similar reasoning can be applied to the Applicants’ arguments on page 12 par 1.
The Applicant further states “The amended claims here recite a specific machine architecture in which authenticated execution of regulator-approved programming gates a continuously cycling RNG and a multi-tiered persistent-element bonus- feature mechanic on a regulator-approved gaming apparatus, a specific manner of operating the gaming machine that defines how the gameplay is achieved, not merely what gameplay is shown.” (Remarks page 14). The Examiner disagrees and notes that other than the assertion, the Applicant has not persuasively shown or demonstrated that the claimed elements are not merely using conventional computing technology, such as generic RNG and generic authentication software to implement gaming rules that cause the operation of the wagering game.
Under Prong Two, the Applicant fails to show how the computer or computing technology is improved in a way that is indicative of a practical application of the judicial exception other than generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use.
Step 2B: The Ordered Combination Recited by the Claims Constitutes Significantly More
The Applicant further alleges that Examiner’s finding of the additional elements claimed alone or in combination with the claimed limitations fails to show they supply additional elements that yield significantly more that the underlying abstract idea, is in error. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and is not persuaded by the allegation of the Applicant. The Examiner has identified the additional elements and has shown clearly how these additional elements are indeed generic and conventional as supported by Vancura, Berman and Gura
The Examiner maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5911. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 4pm.
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.
/RAW/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
8/26/2026
/KANG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights