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 01/02/2026.
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 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 a gaming system or method of gaming which comprises sufficient machine elements performing the steps. As per step 2A the claim(s) recite(s) “execute an electronic game in a first mode of the plurality of modes; detect an occurrence of an event in the first mode of the electronic game; execute the electronic game in a second mode of the plurality of modes based on the detected occurrence of the event, wherein the second mode of the plurality of modes comprises a tier of a plurality of tiers; apply a tier determination rule to game play information for the electronic game executed in the second mode; update the tier of the plurality of tiers for the second mode based on the applied tier determination rule; and provide, through the display device, a visual indication of the updated tier of the plurality of tiers for the second mode in both the first mode and second mode of the plurality of modes, wherein the visual indication of the updated tier advances as the updated tier advances through the plurality of tiers.” which teaches a game comprising a first mode game which has an event to trigger a second game with a second mode with the second mode comprising a plurality of tiers with tier determination rules. Amended language adds further visual features to indicate this information such as animating a change in tier including by associating the change with a character or a visual change to a character detail. Examiner further recognizes that the dependent claims include clarification on what rules are applied, what type of games, and display methods. As per the mental steps see highlighted sections which include determination language and based on a condition being met which are game rules that can be performed in the mind by observing the state of a game and applying the corresponding rule. While a random determination is not a mental step the step of applying a rule based on a state, which would include the state of a random number generation, is a step that can be performed in the mind. Specifically an individual can determine the next step or what tier to apply to a game including the tier rules by observing this information. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims remain directed to a game comprising a series of rules. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims remain directed towards a means to carry out a game without an indicated improvement beyond carrying out the claimed game. Specifically the claims are directed to a carrying out a game based on established rules and do not comprises a technical improvement to the computing art or other practical applications. Instead a series of game rules are recited which are carried out by the gaming system.
As per step 2B examiner recognizes that additional elements are directed to conventional activities or extra solution activity. See below.
Limitations “gaming system comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled with and readable by the processor and storing therein a set of instructions which, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to: execute an electronic game”, “wherein the visual indication of the updated tier in the first mode and the visual indication of the updated tier are synchronized as the updated tier advances through the plurality of tiers”, and other associated hardware. 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 images of a game outcome 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 tiers of a game presented 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. Specifically it is conventional to include the step of displaying the game outcome and the action of tiers or levels for an associated game would be extra solution activity as the animation is directed towards a theme while the actual act of animating in a game is conventional. This would include the amended animation changes which are still directed to extra solution activity regarding a theme of the game since the animation still communicate data in a conventional manner but are theme to fit a particular game visually which is not a change to the hardware but how data is presented for visual effect. Specifically a type of animation used, such as character changes, is not a change to the hardware but is a visual design choice. This would include synchronizing animations, including between tiers, modes, or other features, since this goes towards a theme of the game and does not add a technical solution beyond the outputting of the game state. Specifically this is a not a new technology or unconventional means to displaying animation but instead the outputting of a game image which is conventional to the art. Therefore the hardware and animation features do not provide a practical application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the previous 101 rejection was overcome by the amendments filed. Specifically amendments to how information is displayed. Examiner finds this reads on the previous portion of step 2B regarding animation and display steps being both conventional and extra solution activity. Specifically displaying information for an electronic game is conventional to the art as evidenced by references above in the step 2B. The particular theme or what information is displayed is extra solution activity based on the game presented. Specifically what symbols, how they are displayed, where they are displayed, if features displays are synchronized, and other features are themes to a game and not features that would overcome a step 2B rejection as being directed to non-conventional hardware.
Applicant further argues that the specific combination of claims does not attempt to “tie up” the judicial exception and includes hardware features. Regarding “tie up” “[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89–90 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (same for obviousness) (Symantec). The claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter. Merely including features that narrows a claim does not overcome 101. Additionally hardware features, as argued by applicant, are addressed in step 2B with examiner noting that implementing a judicial exception on a generic computer has not been found to overcome 101 as detailed in the step 2B.
Regarding step 2A applicant argues that the claims as a combination does not read on a mental step and includes features too complicated for an individual to perform. Examiner respectfully disagrees since the claims are directed towards mental steps such as determination and based on a condition being met which are game rules that can be performed in the mind by observing the state of a game and applying the corresponding rule. An individual is mentally capable of carrying out a game including the steps of determining what next to perform based on a game state. For example an individual can look at a random outcome and determine what to rule to apply next based on the outcome. This is commonly seen in games such as card games wherein a user can determine a next action from randomly determined cards but it also applies to slot machines because an individual can observe the symbols produced in order to determine what next game step to advance to. As per the hardware and software features such as animation these are handled in step 2B. Including hardware or software steps by themselves do not overcome 101 if they are directed towards conventional or extra solution activity.
Applicant argues that the claims recite a practical application by providing a way to display and provide a sense of progress to a user. Examiner indicates that this is drawn to how a game is played and therefore mental step portion. Additionally a sense of progress is a known feature of gaming including old and well-known games such as tabletop RPG, puzzles, boardgames, and other games where a player progresses through the game in order to complete the game. This is not a technical improvement to how games function but instead is drawn to a general motivation in gaming where a player feels accomplished when they progress and complete a game. Therefore examiner respectfully disagrees that this overcomes step 2A.
See updated step 2B and arguments above.
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 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 7/15/2026
Prosecution Insights