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 .
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/23/26 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-3, 5-15, 17, and 19-20 are pending. Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended and no new claims have been added. Claims 4, 16, and 18 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative traverses the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 as being directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more (see Remarks, pg. 7-8). Specifically, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims are directed not directed to the abstract idea of organizing human activity but to generate and/or modify a game outcome, or part of a game outcome by indicating special symbols that are passing to be perceived by the user is a technical process that is an improvement to conventional slot-based gaming technology to present a “winning-while-spinning” game operation (see Remarks, pg. 7-9). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As characterized by the Applicant’s representative, the claims are directed to generate and/or modify a game outcome, or part of a game outcome based on symbols that spin by while the one or more reels are still spinning (referred to as “winning-while-spinning” game operation which is a rule and/or instructions for managing a symbol game which is analogous to a certain method of organizing human activity the courts have indicated is directed to a fundamental economic activity and/or managing a social activity (including rules and/or instructions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)II).
Moreover, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims recite technical improvement of visually and audibly indicating a decoupling of the landing of special symbols so that the user may perceive the ”winning-while-spinning” game operation (see Remarks, pg. 8-9 – citing to Specification 0024-0026). A review of the cited portion, indicate that a “winning-while-spinning game operation” may present game design challenged related to the degree of randomness when incorporated with other game mechanics but there is no discussion as to how the technical problems presented by game design are solve by a technical solution. In contrast, the Examiner finds that the cited portions indicate the desired result of “winning-while-spinning game operation” is directed to rules and/or instructions for managing a winning-while-spinning game in order to comply with gaming regulations (e.g., controlling a degree of randomness at a target level within random gaming environment) are not indicative of an improvement to computer functionality but to a common place business method invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the analysis under Step 2A-prong 1 under the two-part Alice test is maintained below.
With respect to Step 2A-prong 2, the Applicant’s representative argues that even if the claims include a judicial exception as a whole the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application is an improvement to the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field that allow for the “winning-while-spinning” game operation (see Remarks, pg. 9-11). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously stated, the limitations are found to recite rules and/or instructions for managing a “winning-while-spinning” game that is directed to the abstract idea itself. Moreover, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims are directed to an improved gaming device that provides random game modifications when one or more reels are in the spinning state. However, the claims do not appear to recite how the technical game design challenges relating to concurrently handling the processing of results that have landed/appeared on at least one reel while controlling the implementation of the graphical animation of a number of other reels but merely arranging transactional information to display the game result to the user which is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)I – referring to Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). 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 asserts that the implementation of the “winning-while-spinning” game operation concept provides an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As asserted above, managing the game operation concept during a winning while spinning game is directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. The courts have indicated that the abstract idea does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the analysis under Step 2B has been maintained and the claims are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
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 1-3, 5-15, 17, and 19-20 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 such as:
1. A system, comprising:
a non-transitory storage medium that stores instructions; and
a processor that executes the instructions to:
for a game instance that includes reels, generate a reel length, reel speed, and duration of reel spin of a dynamic reel strip using a random number generator call, the dynamic reel strip assigned to one of the reels and including special symbols;
displaying a spinning of the dynamic reel strip, and, during spinning, indicating an amount of the special symbols that are displayed during the spin on one of the reels, wherein the indicating comprises audibly and visually decoupling the special symbols from the spinning of the dynamic reel strip, and wherein a game outcome for the game instance is modified based, at least in part, on the amount of special symbols displayed during the spinning of the dynamic reel strip while the other reels are still spinning -certain method of organizing human activity;
once the amount of the special symbols reaches a designated number, stop the spinning of the reels; -certain method of organizing human activity; and
generate the game outcome -certain method of organizing human activity.
The claim limitations as indicated above are found to recite a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite steps and/or instructions for managing a reel game (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). For at least these reasons, the claims 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: “generate a reel length, reel speed, and duration of reel spin of a dynamic reel strip using a random number generator call, the dynamic reel strip assigned to one of the reels and including special symbols;” “displaying a spinning of the dynamic reel strip” and “wherein the indicating comprises audibly and visually decoupling” recite steps and/or instructions to 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 (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). The remaining limitations such as: “a system” comprising: “a non-transitory storage medium that stores instructions” and “a processor that executes the instructions to:” recite highly-generalized computer components to perform their ordinary functions to be invoked 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 elements of: a system comprising: “a non-transitory storage medium” and “a processor” when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements amount to invoking 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 instance, Vancura (US 2010/0029381) discloses a conventional gaming system comprises a non-transitory storage medium and a processor to manage a wagering game including using a random number generator to generate events of the game (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0008, 0037-0040). For at least these reasons, the additional elements are not found to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
With respect to independent claims 9 and 17, the claims recite substantially the same subject matter but are different in that the claim recite use of a random number generator call to “determine a number of at least partial revolutions to spin a reel strip assigned to one of the reels” (claim 9) and “determine a number of stops to move a stepper corresponding to one of the reels or a time or frequency that the one of the reel steps, the one of the reels including special symbols” (claim 17), respectively. However, these differences do not modify or change the analysis as they recite are directed to a certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental processes (see MPEP 2106.04(a)) similar to the discussion with respect to independent claim 1 above. For substantially the same reasons as discussed above, independent claims 9 and 17 are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
With respect to dependent claims 2-3, 5-8, 10-15, and 19-20, the claims have been analyzed and were found to recite limitations directed to at least one of 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 1-20 are found to recite 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