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 1-4, 7-12, and 15-20 are pending. Claims 1, 3-4, 9, 11-12, 17, and 19-20 have been amended and claims 5-6 and 13-14 were previously cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative presents arguments to address Claims 1-4, 7-12, and 15-20 rejected under 35 USC 101 (see Remarks, pg. 11-14). Specifically, the Applicant’s representative argues that the Claims are i) not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A-prong 1 (see Remarks, pg. 11-12); ii) the claims provide a technical solution to a technical problem to control a variability of game presentations to users given an limited number of computer resources (e.g., a given number of RNG outcomes to be generated using a predefined set of reels having predefined sequences of symbols) under Step 2A-prong 2 (see Remarks, pg. 12-14); and iii) the claims are directed to “Significantly More” than the abstract idea under Step 2B (see Remarks, pg. 14). The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons provided in the sections below.
With respect to Step 2A-prong 1, the Applicant’s representative appears to argue that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because they do not recite any fundamental economic practices such as wagering games, but to a system and method for randomly generating electronic display outcomes with improved variability (see Remarks, pg. 11-12). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The courts have indicated that rules and/or instructions for managing the game are found to be directed to a certain method of organizing human activity which includes instructions for randomly generating electronic display outcomes to generating an outcome of the symbol game. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the analysis has been maintained below.
With respect to Step 2A-prong 2, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims recite a technical solution to a technical problem to control a variability of game presentations given a limited number of computer resources. It appears the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claimed steps of the electronic game for determining outcomes of the game provides a technical solution recited in the Specification by adding technical features that reduces computational resources and/or increases computational speeds that can be achieved with a given number of computational resources. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited portions of the Specification recite a general statement that technical effect of increased variability for game presentation to users, improved computational speed, and conserving resources being used during a game instance, and an improvement to a user when having a limited display real estate for displaying information. However, the Specification does not provide any further details as to the nexus as to how the instructions for managing the symbol game improves the computational speed of the computer, conserves resources being used during a gaming instance, and/or improve a user interface by displaying certain information to a user when having a limited display real estate for displaying information. In contrast, the claims appear to recite a set of rules and/or instructions for managing the symbol game wherein the additional imitations are found to utilize general functions of commercially available computer components to perform their general function that is not indicative of an improvement to the functioning of the 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 Step 2B, the Applicant’s representative appears to argue that the recitation of limitations such as: “in response to each position of at least one row of the second plurality of positions including the trigger symbol, cause the activation status for each position of the at least one row….wherein a size of the modified active matrix controls a variability of display outcomes achievable by a given set of RNG outcomes using the same plurality of reel strips defining the respective sequences of symbols”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As analyzed in the Non-Final Rejection, mailed 6/3/26, these limitations were found when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements as reciting a certain method of organizing human activity under Step 2A-prong 1, additional limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2 and does not amount to significantly more under Step 2B. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection 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 1-4, 7-12, and 15-20 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, recite limitations directed to grouping of abstract ideas as indicated below:
1. An electronic gaming system comprising:
at least one memory storing (i) instructions (ii) an activation status specifying one of an active state or an inactive state of each of the second plurality of positions, and (iii) a plurality of reel strips each associated with a respective column of a plurality of columns, each of the plurality of reel strips defining a respective sequent of symbols; and
at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
cause display, on the display device, of the electronic game, including a first display area including a first plurality of positions and a second display area including a plurality of positions, the first plurality of positions and the second plurality of positions defining the plurality of columns, wherein each of the second plurality of positions is initially displayed and stored in the at least one memory in the inactive state and not used for evaluation in at least one subsequent play instance of the electronic game, and wherein the first plurality of positions define an initial active matrix; – certain method of organizing human activity;
for a first instance of the electronic game, determine, for each column of the initial active matrix, a first stop position of a respective reel strip based on a corresponding first random number generator (RNG) outcome, the first stop position specifying a first portion of the respective sequence of symbols of the respective reel strip to be displayed within the associated respective column of the initial active matrix; -certain method of organizing human activity;
cause display, on the display device, the specified first portion of the respective sequence of symbols for each column of the initial active matrix;
in response to a trigger symbol being included in the symbols being displayed in the first plurality of positions, cause the trigger symbol to be displayed in at least one of the second plurality of positions while maintaining the inactivate state of the at least one of the second plurality of symbol positions stored in the at least one memory; -certain method of organizing human activity;
in response to each position of at least one row of the second plurality of positions the trigger symbol, cause the activation status for each position of the at least one row stored in the at least one memory and displayed to change to the activate state, wherein the first plurality of positions and each position of the at least one row define a modified active matrix in which at least one column of the plurality of columns has an increased number of rows configured to display a respective portion of the respective reel strip that has an increased number of symbols, and wherein a size of the modified active matrix controls a variability of display outcomes achievable by a given set of RNG outcomes using the same plurality of reel strips defining the respective sequences of symbols; and -certain method of organizing human activity; and
for a subsequent instance of the electronic game, determine, for each column of the modified active matrix, a second stop position of the respective reel strip based on a corresponding second RNG outcome, the second stop position specifying a second portion of the respective sequence of symbols of the respective reel strip to be displayed within the associated respective column of the modified active matrix; and -certain method of organizing human activity;
cause display, on the display device, the specified second portion of the respective sequence of symbols for each column of the modified active matrix.
The limitations as indicated above are found to recite a certain method of organizing human activity because the recite a series of rules and/or instructions for managing an electronic symbol game. For at least these reasons, 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 which recite: “at least one memory storing (i) instructions (ii) an activation status specifying one of an active state or an inactive state of each of the second plurality of positions, and (iii) a plurality of reel strips each associated with a respective column of a plurality of columns, each of the plurality of reel strips defining a respective sequent of symbols;” “at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:” “based on a corresponding first random number generator (RNG) outcome,” “cause display, on the display device, the specified first portion of the respective sequence of symbols for each column of the initial active matrix;” “stored in the at least one memory;” and “cause display, on the display device, the specified second portion of the respective sequence of symbols for each column of the modified active matrix.” are found to recite mere instructions to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or insignificant extra solution activity of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(g)). For at least these reasons, the additional limitations of 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 recited additional elements such as: “an electronic gaming system”, “at least one memory”, and “at least one processor” and “a random number generator” when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements recite use of highly-generalized computer components invoked as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea. For instance, Vancura (US 2010/0029381 A1) discloses a conventional gaming system comprises at least one memory and at least processor and a random number generator to generate random events in electronic gaming (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0008, 0037-0040). It follows that when the limitations are viewed individually, they recite steps and rules of an electronic game. When the limitations are viewed as a collection, they recite instructions to manage an electronic game. For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent claim 1, are not found to recite an abstract idea without significantly more under Step 2B.
Regarding independent claims 9 and 17, the claims recite substantially the same subject matter as analyzed with respect to independent Claim 1. Although the claims differ, the claims are directed to the method and non-transitory computer readable medium embodiments, these differences do not change conclusions of the findings under independent claim 1. It follows that independent claims 9 and 17 are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more for substantially the same reasons as independent claim 1.
Regarding dependent claims 2-4, 7-8, 10-12, 15-16, and 18-20, the limitations have been 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, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea. For at least these reasons, claims 1-4, 7-12, and 15-20 are found to be directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
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