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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to amendments filed on 10/07/2025.
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 1-6, 8-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mental step without significantly more. As per step 1 examiner recognizes the claims are directed towards method claims with sufficient machine elements performing the steps or a gaming machine. As per step 2A the claim(s) recite(s) “prior to executing the game program, executing an authentication program on the game server to authenticate the programming for the game program and the random number generator; conducting a base game including: transmitting instructions to a client device to cause the presentation of a plurality of symbol-bearing base reels and a base array on a display of the client device; spinning and stopping the plurality of base reels to land symbols from the base reels in the base array; and in response to a triggering condition, triggering a bonus game; and in response to triggering the bonus game, conducting the bonus game, including: transmitting instructions to the client device to cause the presentation of a plurality of symbol-bearing bonus reels, a bonus array, and a prize board on the display of the client device, the plurality of bonus reels bearing a plurality of prize symbols, the prize board including a plurality of prizes and a plurality of collection registers associated with the respective prizes, each prize symbol associated with a respective one of the prizes; spinning and stopping the plurality of bonus reels to land symbols from the bonus reels in the bonus array; updating the collection register for the prize that is associated with each landed prize symbol; in response to none of the updated collection registers being filled, repeating the spinning and stopping operation and the updating operation; in response to a number of landed prize symbols exceeding the number of landed prize symbols required to fill their associated collection register, calculating a quantity of the excess prize symbols and applying a modifier to a value of the prize associated with the filled collection register based on the calculated quantity of the excess prize symbols; and in response to any of the updated collection registers being filled, awarding the prizes associated with the filled collection registers as a number of non- monetary credits.” teaches a game comprising either a base game triggering a bonus game or a game comprising the steps of presenting a slot game comprising slot reels and a prize presentation which comprises registers and an associated value. The registers being incremented based on the outcome of the slot game with the game repeating till the a register is full with any excess symbols on filling a register being used to calculate a quantity of excess prize symbols and applying a modifier to a value of the prize associated with the register based on the calculation wherein the prize is non-monetary credits. Dependent claims further include features of the gaming device, the values including multiplier values which multiply the award value, and when to end the game. Examiner recognizes that the claims are directed towards a series of mental steps, see bolded language, such as “in response to” and increasing steps which are drawn to the mental steps of observing a state of the game and applying a rule accordingly. For example an individual can observe the symbols present in an outcome of game and applying a corresponding rules such as when to update a register count, when to update the value of an award associated with the register, and when to award it. These are the mental actions of observation and making a determination which can be performed by an individual playing the game. Applicant’s argued features regarding the step of tracking registers, updating registers, calculating modifications based on excess, and applying still remain mental steps. An individual is perfectly capable of tracking a few registers to determine what count the registers are currently at in the game since this is the action of memorizing a state of the game and is performed regularly. For example individuals can count cards which is remember the previous states of the game and what cards have been played. This includes updating their count based on the current state of the game. Remembering what state a register is currently at is not a step that would go beyond what a person can reasonably remember since it is the action of remembering the number of symbols that have appeared for a given reel. The action of calculation is applying this information based on established rules with examiner recognizing that this would be basic math being applied. Therefore examiner disagrees that these steps cannot be performed mentally. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it remains a mental process in the form of game rules. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because performing a mental step based on a displayed outcome is carrying out of a game which can be performed mentally. Specifically observing the state of the game and applying a rule accordingly remains a mental step and no recited steps beyond conventional feature or extra solution activity are recited that cannot be performed in the mind. Specifically following rules can be performed in the mind. Additional elements are addressed below regarding the display and hardware portions.
As per step 2B examiner recognizes that additional elements are directed to conventional activities or extra solution activity. See below.
Limitation “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 game program, the method comprising the operations of: prior to executing the game program, executing an authentication program on the gaming machine to authenticate the programming for the game program and the random number generator; conducting, by game-logic circuitry, a base game including: presenting, by a presentation assembly, a plurality of symbol-bearing base reels and a base array; spinning and stopping the plurality of base reels to land symbols from the base reels in the base array;”, presentation assembly, recitations of servers, and other associated hardware and computer steps. The hardware elements are commonly found in the gaming art related to electronic slot machines or wagering terminals and therefore are no more than a generic recitation of computer hardware elements including network elements and therefore does not provide a practical application that amounts to more than the identified abstract idea. This includes the recitation of memory, processors, and displaying steps which are generically found in electronic gaming machine including the elements accepting wagers for the purpose of presenting an outcome and payout for the results. See US 6186894 B1 at col. 5, lines 25-38 regarding video slot reels including displaying outcomes and that the activity of spinning and producing random outcomes from a wagering game are conventional activities well-understood in the art. See Acres (US Pub. No. 2012/0172107 A1) teaches within the electronic gaming art the use of a random number generator to determine numbers for specific reel stop positions in order to determine an outcome which is evaluated if it is a winning combination of symbols appearing on a played payline (paragraph [0073]). Specifically it is conventional to communicate data to output to a user comprising animated spinning of a wager determining device (which would include reels or wheels) or static images to communicate an outcome and award due as well as the state of the game. Therefore these limitations do not provide a practical application. Further the means of displaying graphics and animations regarding a result or state of the game are conventional to the art and is directed towards extra solution activity as being a means to output information without changing the identified mental steps above. This includes the act of displaying particular animations or image regarding an outcome including selected states for a game comprising counters for awards and increasing values for the awards since these display steps are extra solution activity and directed to the outputting of data to inform a player which is conventional to the art. This would include display or animation steps regarding providing information regarding the feature game that can be or will be carried out since these are display steps related to the outcome or communicating the state of the game. See Peek (US Pub. No. 2009/0203430 A1) regarding a lock box which contains the CPU and memory elements "As is generally known, a "brain box" is typically a sheet metal enclosure within the gaming machine that is adapted to house a number of critical components, such as the MGC or CPU, as well as various memory devices, such as some RAM, NVRAM, the hard drive, and other such components. This brain box can come with a lock, and may be removable from the gaming machine as an entire unit in some cases." paragraph [0052]. Therefore the inclusion of the lock box is conventional in nature and extra solution activity since the invention is directed towards the game and not the structure of the gaming machine. The use of a lock box for the CPU elements has no effect on the inventive concept and does not modify the claimed steps. As per the continuous cycling random number generator examiner finds that the particular random number generator used is extra solution activity since the invention is directed towards a play of a game and not how a random number is generated. Even with this examiner points to "RNGs – What Are They, and Are They Random?" by Buddy Frank at page 3 “One gaming software engineer used the analogy that many of the early slot machine PRNGs were like a giant loop of random numbers that is constantly rotating. Once the spin or play button is hit, the computer program does a few quick housekeeping chores, like determining the credits played and the paytable, then stops on the number that happens to be looping by at that precise instant.” which shows the conventional feature of looping random numbers with the current random number selected at the time of determination to produce an outcome. Takeda (US Pat. No. 6,190,257) the use of authentication programs before the start of an electronic game to confirm the game's authenticity are known including several techniques for performing the task (col. 30, lines 42-60). Therefore the inclusion of authentication software goes towards known conventional features in the art and are is also extra solution activity since the invention is directed towards the game and not the means to authenticate the game. Specifically the game steps are not modified based on how the game is authenticated. As per the server system this would read on conventional features regarding performing functions of a machine over a network. Specifically it is conventional to have part of the function of a game or other program performed on a server and communicated to a client since this is a basic function carried out using the internet on a regular basis. Therefore the hardware and animation features do not provide a practical application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see 101 arguments regarding hedging and prior art arguments, filed 10/07/2025, with respect to amended language overcoming the rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically applicant has amended to indicate the prize is now non-monetary. Additionally regarding prior art the calculation portion for excess symbols has been updated and clarified. This would not have been an obvious modification over the prior art and therefore the previous rejection is overcome.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the mental step portion of the 101 rejection has been overcome. Applicant’s argued features regarding the step of tracking registers, updating registers, calculating modifications based on excess, and applying still remain mental steps. An individual is perfectly capable of tracking a few registers to determine what count the registers are currently at in the game since this is the action of memorizing a state of the game and is performed regularly. For example individuals can count cards which is remember the previous states of the game and what cards have been played. This includes updating their count based on the current state of the game. Remembering what state a register is currently at is not a step that would go beyond what a person can reasonably remember since it is the action of remembering the number of symbols that have appeared for a given reel. The action of calculation is applying this information based on established rules with examiner recognizing that this would be basic math being applied. Therefore examiner disagrees that these steps cannot be performed mentally. Therefore examiner disagrees that it would not have been reasonable to perform the highlighted section as mental steps. As per applicant’s argued improvement it appears to rely upon a gaming machine performing the recited game rules and an argument that performing the game rules is on itself an improvement. Examiner notes however that the improvement appears to go towards a theme of a game and how the game is played instead of a technology improvement. Specifically how is the function of a computer improved is one example of a practical improvement. Therefore at this time examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN L MYHR whose telephone number is (571)270-7847. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM.
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.
/JUSTIN L MYHR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
2/11/2026