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 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 11, and 20 have been amended and no new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative traverses the rejection under 35 USC 101 because the pending claims are i) not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A-prong 1 (see Remarks, pg. 9-10); ii) recite a practical application to show an improvement in “a variability of randomly generated display produced using given computing resources performance requirements” which provides a technical solution to the problem described in the Specification (see Remarks, pg. 10-11); and iii) the claims are directed to “significantly more” than the abstract idea (see Remarks, pg. 12). The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons provided in the sections below.
With respect to the arguments under Step 2A-prong 1, the Applicant’s representative argues that even if the claims were considered to involve an exception, these limitations do not recite any fundamental economic practices because they recite electronic devices and computer-implemented steps that must be performed by a computer (see Remarks, pg. 9-10). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite steps and/or instructions to manage a social activity (e.g., a symbol game) including rules and/or instructions for generating game outcomes, a wild symbol accumulation feature, and an instruction for replacing the identified symbol positions to replacement with a second symbol. Moreover, although the claims do not explicitly recite a wager of the symbol game, the Specification indicates that the subject matter of the symbol game is directed to “slot” type games that are displayed in a row-by-column matrix that typically use a random number generator (RNG) to randomly determine the outcome of games (see Specification, 0003-0005). It follows that the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the claims are directed to a certain method of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic activity and/or managing a social activity including rules and/or instructions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). For at least these reasons, the analysis under Step 2A-prong 1 has been maintained below.
With respect to the arguments under Step 2A-prong 2, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims, as a whole, integrate the claim into a practical application and reflect an improvement of “an improvement in a variability of randomly generated display produced using given computing resources and performance requirements” (see Remarks, pg. 10-12). Specifically, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claim recites an improvement by increasing a number of different game outcomes that can be presented given a set number of RNG outcomes to perform, a variability of the randomly generated display can be improved without needing to perform additional computationally expensive processing steps which provide a technical solution to the problem described in the Specification (see Remarks, pg. 11). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited portions of the Specification provide a general statement arising from wagering games that technical problems arise but does not indicate or show how the claimed subject matter provides a technical solution to the technical problems associated with computing resources and/or performance requirements that would be indicative of an improvement to another field of technology. In contrast, the Examiner finds that the claims recite rules and/or instructions for managing a symbol game in which the additional limitations recite a desired result of computer functionality by invoking highly generalized computer components to perform their general functions to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Stated differently, the claims are not found to reflect an improvement in computer-functionality and/or to any other technology or technical field but similar to other concepts that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to integrate the claim into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(a)I-II – wherein the claimed subject matter of arranging the game outcome is analogous to arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assist traders in processing information more quickly; a common place business method (e.g., managing a symbol game) being applied on a general purpose computer). For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the analysis under Step 2A-prong 2 has been maintained below.
With respect to the arguments under Step 2B, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims satisfy Step 2B because there is no indication in the Office Action that is was well-understood, routine, or conventional (see Remarks, pg. 12). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the Non-Final Rejection, dated 4/7/26, the additional elements recited in the Claims did not amount to significantly more. Specifically, the Examiner indicated that the additional elements did not amount to significantly more because when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements they recited a conventional gaming machine known to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts that amount to invoking a computer as a tool and/or providing a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see Non-Final Rejection, paragraph 14-17). For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the analysis has been maintained below.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims, as exemplified by independent claim 1, recites limitations directed to a grouping of abstract ideas as indicated below:
1. An electronic gaming system comprising at least one memory device with instructions stored thereon, and at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory device, the memory device storing one or more reels each including a plurality of symbols, the plurality of symbols including at least one first symbol and at least one second symbol, the at least one first symbol being different from the at least one second symbol, the at least one second symbol specified to be replaceable by the first symbol, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
cause to be displayed a game interface on a display device, the game interface including a game matrix including a plurality of columns each having a plurality of symbol positions, each symbol position for displaying a symbol, each of the plurality of columns associated with one of the one or more reels;
generate, during a first period of a base game, one or more game outcomes by, for each of the one or more game outcomes, randomly determining some of the plurality of symbols to display in each of the plurality of columns from a corresponding reel of the one or more reels by executing one or more RNG outcomes to determine a respective reel stop position for the corresponding reel for each of the plurality of columns -certain method of organizing human activity;
in response to a wild symbol being displayed as one of the plurality of symbols displayed for one of the one or more game outcomes generated during the first period, increment a counter configured to count a total number of wild symbols displayed within any of the symbol positions of the game matrix over the first period; - certain method of organizing human activity; and
in response to the total number of wild symbols counted over the first period satisfying a threshold, parse the one or more of the plurality of symbols of the one or more reels to identify one or more positions of the one or more reels that include the second symbol; and -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
modify the identified one or more positions of the one or more reels to replace the first symbol with the second symbol, wherein at least one subsequent spin is generated based on the modified one or more reels, wherein modifying the identified one or more positions increases a number of possible game outcomes that can be presented during the first period based on a same number of RNG outcomes. -certain method of organizing human activity.
The limitations, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, as underlined above, each recite limitations directed to rules and/or instructions for managing a base symbol game which is analogous to a certain method of organizing human activity. For at least this reason, the claims, as exemplified by independent claim 1 are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A-prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations such as: “An electronic gaming system comprising at least one memory device with instructions stored thereon, and at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory device, the memory device storing one or more reels each including a plurality of symbols, wherein one or more of the plurality of symbols are predesignated as being modifiable and one or more of the plurality of symbols are predesignated as being non-modifiable, the plurality of symbols including at least one first symbol and at least one second symbol, the at least one first symbol being different from the at least one second symbol, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:” and “cause to be displayed a game interface on a display device, the game interface including a game matrix including a plurality of columns each having a plurality of symbol positions, each symbol position for displaying a symbol, each of the plurality of columns associated with one of the one or more reels;” recite a set of instructions to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, perform insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent claim 1, do not integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2.
The claims, as exemplified by independent claim 1, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements such as: “An electronic gaming system”, “at least one memory device”, “at least one processor”, “a random number generator” and “a display device” when viewed individually and/or as a combination of elements amount to highly generalized computer components to be invoked as a tool to implement the abstract idea, perform insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For instance, Vancura discloses a conventional electronic gaming system comprises at least one memory device, at least one processor, and a display device that is known to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0008, 0037-0040). For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, are found to recite an abstract idea without significantly more under Step 2B.
Regarding independent claims 11 and 20, the claims are directed to substantially the same subject matter but differ in that the recite the embodiments directed to a gaming system and non-transitory computer-readable medium, respectively. It follows that these differences do not recite additional limitations that amount to significantly more. For at least the reasons discussed above, the independent claims 11 and 20 are found to recite an abstract idea without significantly more for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19, the limitations of the claims have been reviewed and analyzed and were found to recite additional limitations directed to a grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)), invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, recite insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 210.605(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, claims 1-20 are found to recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. .
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitations such as: “wherein modifying the identified one or more positions increases a number of possible game outcomes that can be presented during the first period based on a same number of RNG outcomes” which is not adequately described to indicate that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Although, the Specification discloses modifying the identified one or more positions to replace a first symbol with a second symbol (see Specification, 0031), it does not disclose or teach the particulars as to how the inventor intended to “increase a number of possible game outcomes that can be presented during the first period based on a same number of RNG outcomes”. A review of the Specification appears to indicate that different types of RNGs can be used to drive an determination of symbols, satisfy regulatory requirements, and may utilize a lookup table to map the RNG outcome to a game outcome but is silent as to how the claimed subject matter achieves the technological improvement to processing power and/or achieves the increase variability and increase a number of possible game outcomes that can be presented during the first period based on a same number of RNG outcomes (see Specification, 0005, 0056-0062, 0086-0088). However, the Specification lacks any details as to the interrelationship between the lookup tables and/or nexus of the RNG engine for managing the RNG outcomes that disclose how the inventor intended to achieve the claimed function of “modifying the identified one or more positions increases a number of possible game outcomes that can be presented during the first period based on a same number of RNG outcomes” to show possession of the claimed invention. For at least these reasons the indicated limitations are found to recite NEW MATTER.
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 RYAN HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00-6:00 PM.
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.
/RYAN HSU/EXAMINER, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights