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, 9, and 17 have been amended and claims 5, 6, and 13-14 were previously cancelled. No new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative presents arguments to address the rejections under 35 USC 112 and 35 USC 101. With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112, the Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive to overcome the rejection. The rejection of claims 1-4, 7-12, and 15-20 has been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims 1-4, 7-12, and 15-20 are i) not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A (see Remarks, pg. 10-12) and ii) are directed to “significantly more” than the abstract idea under Step 2B (see Remarks, pg. 13).
With respect to the first argument, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims do not recite any certain method of organizing human activity (e.g., fundamental economic practices) because they recite electronic devices and computer-implemented steps that much be performed by a computer (see Remarks, pg. 10-11). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. A review of the instantly claimed invention, the claims recite limitations that are found be directed to a series of steps and/or instructions for managing a symbol game which is analogous to what the courts have indicated is directed to a certain method of organizing human activity including fundamental economic practices and managing a social activity including rules and/or instructions. Moreover, such limitations such as “in response to each position of at least one row of the second plurality of positions including the trigger system, cause the activation status for each position of the at least one row” “to change to the active state, wherein the first plurality of positions and each position of the at least one row define a modified active matrix, and herein a size of the modifies active matrix controls a variability of display outcomes achievable by a given set of RNG outcomes” recites rules and/or instructions for managing a game. It follows that the claims are found to recite a grouping of abstract idea under Step 2A-prong 1.
Moreover, the Applicant’s representative assert that under Step 2A-prong 2, the claim as a whole integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Remarks, pg. 11-12). In particular, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims integrate the claim into a practical application because by “i) storing instructions for displaying a first display area including a first plurality of positions and a second display area including a second plurality of positions, and (ii) an activation status specifying one of an active state or an inactive state of each of the second plurality of positions” the system recited in Claim 1 is capable of modifying an active game matrix to control a variability of a game presentation to the users given a certain limited number of computer resources which recites an improvement in technology (see Remarks, pg. 12). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recited limitations for “storing instructions for displaying…a second plurality of positions” and “an activation status specifying one of an active state or an inactive state of each of the second plurality of positions” recite instructions for managing a game (e.g., displaying the symbol outcomes for the game and an activation state of the games) including arranging transactional information to convey the state of the game to the player. Stated differently, the claim limitations are found to recite a desired result of the game and are not found to recite an improvement to storing instructions for displaying or to the functioning that invoke conventional components in the gaming arts as a tool to implement the abstract idea. It follows that these limitations are not found to integrate the claim into a practical application but amount to invoking 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 (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). It follows that the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the analysis under Step 2A-prong 2 has been maintained below.
With respect to the argument under Step 2B, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims satisfy Step 2B because there is no indication that “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 stored in the memory and displayed to change to the active state, wherein the first plurality of positions and each position of the at least one row define a modified active matrix, and wherein a size of the modified active matrix controls a variability of display outcomes achievable by a given set of RNG outcomes” is well-understood, routine, or convention. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations, as underlined above, were found to recite limitations directed to the managing a game which is the abstract idea itself. The remaining limitations such as “stored in memory and displayed”, whether viewed individually and/or as a whole are found to recite mere instructions to invoke a computer as a tool, insignificant extra solution activity (e.g., storing, displaying, and transmitting), and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea by well-known, routine, and conventional steps known to one of ordinary skill in the art that does not integrate the claim into a practical application and/or amount to significantly more the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the analysis under Step 2B is maintained below.
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 with instructions stored thereon for displaying, for an electronic game, a first display area including a first plurality of positions and a second display area including a second plurality of positions, the at least one memory further configured to store an activation status specifying one of an active state or an inactive state of each of the second plurality of positions; 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 of the electronic game, including the first display area and the second display area, 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;
cause display of a plurality of symbols in the initial active matrix for a play instance of the electronic game, the plurality of symbols selected by determining, for each column of the initial active matrix, a stop position of a respective reel based on a corresponding random number generator (RNG) outcome, the stop position specifying symbols of the respective reel to be displayed in corresponding rows of the initial active matrix; -certain method of organizing human activity;
in response to a trigger symbol being included in the plurality of 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, and wherein a size of the modified active matrix controls a variability of display outcomes achievable by a given set of RNG outcomes; and -certain method of organizing human activity; and
cause display of a subsequent plurality of symbols in the modified active matrix for a subsequent play instance of the electronic game, the plurality of symbols selected by determining, for each column of the modified active matrix, a subsequent stop position of the respective reel based on a subsequent corresponding RNG outcome, the stop position specifying subsequent symbols of the respective reels to be displayed in the corresponding rows of the modified active matrix– certain method of organizing human activity.
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 game. For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent claim 1, are found to recite an 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 with instructions stored thereon for displaying, for an electronic game, a first display area including a first plurality of positions and a second display area including a second plurality of positions, the at least one memory further configured to store an activation status specifying one of an active state or an inactive state of each of the second plurality of positions;” “cause display of the electronic game” “cause display of a plurality of symbols in the initial active matrix for a play instance of the electronic game,” “based on a corresponding random number generator (RNG) outcome, the stop position specifying symbols of the respective reel to be displayed in corresponding rows of the initial active matrix;” “stored in the at least one memory;” and “cause display of a subsequent plurality of symbols in the modified active matrix for a subsequent play instance of the electronic game” 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)). The remaining limitations such as: “an electronic gaming system comprising:” 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" recite steps to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h)). 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” 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 (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
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