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
After the amendments filed 03/23/2026, claims 1-20 remain pending, of which, 1-7, 9, 11, 13-16 and 19 were amended.
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 judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed to at least one of abstract idea groupings, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines (Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity). Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
More specifically, regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a system and/or process, which is are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A-1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 recites the following, with the abstract ideas highlighted in bold, including an indication as to the abstract idea grouping(s) to which the indicated limitations belong to, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines. Independent claims 9 and 15, having substantially similar features, were also analyzed and to which the following conclusion is also applicable:
1. A gaming system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
display, by a display device, of a first reel set comprising a first plurality of reels associated with a first plurality of symbol display positions (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity),
display, by the display device, a first plurality of symbols at the first plurality of symbol display positions (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity),
display, by the display device, any first award associated with the first plurality of symbols displayed at the first plurality of symbol display positions (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity), and
when a reel set advancement event has occurred in association with a first symbol displayed at a first symbol display position of the first plurality of symbol display positions of the first reel set (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity):
display, by the display device, a second reel set comprising a second plurality of reels associated with a second plurality of symbol display positions (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity),
display, by the display device, a second plurality of symbols at the second plurality of symbol display positions (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity), and
when a replication event has occurred in association with the same first symbol displayed at the same first symbol display position of the same first plurality of symbol display positions of the same first reel set (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity):
display, by the display device, a second symbol at a first symbol display position of the second plurality of symbol display positions (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity), and
display, by the display device, any second award associated with the second symbol displayed at the first symbol display position of the second plurality of symbol display positions and at least one symbol displayed at at least one of the second plurality of symbol display positions (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity).
The limitations in claim 1 (as well as claim(s) 9 and 15) recite an abstract idea included in the groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, connected to technology only through application thereof using generic computing elements (e.g., a processor, a memory device, a display device, etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity.
According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines:
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include:
1. Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices (including hedging (i.e., wagering), insurance, mitigating risk);
2. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
3. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The interaction encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping.
Specifically, the instant claims include functions/limitations, as highlighted in the independent claim above, that constitute at least:
A. Game-play rules and game-logic operations, which, which fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping. Specifically, the claims recite determining whether a “replication event” or “reel set advancement event” has occurred, displaying additional reel sets based on those events and replicating designated symbols across reel sets. As described in applicant’s specification, these events are triggered by symbols outcomes and govern how the wagering game progresses, including when additional reel sets become active and how symbols propagate across them (See Specification, ¶38-46). Such rules governing the progression, outcomes and presentation of a wagering game constitute game rules, which the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines expressly identify as a form of organizing human activity and therefore an abstract idea. Theses limitation are interpreted as at least “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities”, as they are merely directed to implementing game-play logic and game-progression rules while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in the claims; and/or
B. In light of the applicant' s specification, several limitations identified above are interpreted as reciting wagering related activity, which is abstract idea included in the grouping of Fundamental Economic Principles and Practices under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines. Specifically, the claims recite “display, by the display device, any first award associated with the first plurality of symbols displayed at the first plurality of symbol display positions”. In light of applicant' s specification (See Specification, ¶2, ¶36), displaying an award amount is broadly and reasonably interpreted as requiring placement of a wager, because the award amount is “based on winning symbols or symbol combinations and on the amount of a wager for a game”. Wagering is a form of hedging, which the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines expressly identify as a fundamental economic practice and therefore an abstract idea under the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities. These limitations are interpreted as at least Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the wagering related economic activity while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims.
C. The claims recite commercial or legal interactions, specifically the formation and execution of a gambling contract between a player a game operator. For example, the claims recite displaying plays of a game and based on outcomes of those plays, displaying award amounts. These steps collectively constitute the essential elements of a gambling transaction (i.e., the player places a wager, the system determines outcomes and the system provides consideration (e.g., awards). Such interactions fall within the Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas identified in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, which includes agreements, obligations and other contractual relationships and which are included in the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities. These limitations are interpreted as at least Commercial or Legal Interactions insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the commercial/legal aspects of a gambling transaction while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims.
Regarding dependent claims 2-8, 10-14 and 16-20:
Each claim is dependent either directly or indirectly from the independent claim identified above and includes all the limitations of said independent claim. Therefore, each dependent claim recites the same abstract idea as identified above. Each of the dependent claim further describes additional aspects of the abstract idea, i.e., additional aspects to the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. For example, some dependent claims merely provide additional Methods of Organizing Human Activity to be performed and/or additional insignificant extra-solution activity, without anything more significant to establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A-2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1-20 clearly do not improve the functioning of a computer, as they only incorporate generic computing elements, do not effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Similarly, there is no improvement to a technical field. In addition the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way. The claimed invention does not suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer components are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of “a processor, a memory device, a display device”, etc. used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility. These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer,’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Further, the claims would require structure that is beyond generic, such as structure that can be interpreted analogous to a general purpose structure and general purpose computing elements in that they represent well-understood, routine, conventional elements that do not add significantly more to the claims. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. The elements of a processor, a memory device and a display device are well known conventional devices used to electronically implement a game as evidence by U.S. 2004/0204228, which discloses that a conventional gaming machine comprises elements such as a processor, a memory device and a display device to control the overall operation of the gaming machine (¶58). See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The dependent claims do not add “significantly more” for at least the same reasons as directed to their respective independent claims, at least based on the position, as discussed above, that each of the dependent claims merely provide additional limitations to further expand the abstract idea of the independent claims, without adding anything which would establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Consequently, consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura (U.S. 2017/0092073).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 15, Nakamura discloses:
a gaming system (¶58, Fig. 1, gaming machine 1) comprising:
a processor (¶66-68, Fig. 2, control unit 50 which includes CPU 51); and
a memory device (¶68, Fig. 2, control unit 50 includes memory 53 and storage 54) that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor (¶68, control unit 50 executes programs stored on memory 53 and storage 54 to provide a game to a player), cause the processor to:
cause a display, by a display device, of a first reel set comprising a first plurality of reels associated with a first plurality of symbol display positions (¶128, Fig. 23, based on a main game trigger display areas 60A and 60B are undimmed (i.e., unlocked) and begin spinning),
cause a display, by the display device, of a first plurality of symbols at the first plurality of symbol display positions (¶128-129, Fig. 23, the reels of the first display area 60A are stopped to display game symbols for a first outcome),
cause a display, by the display device, of any first award associated with the first plurality of symbols displayed at the first plurality of symbol display positions (¶129, if the first feature game outcome is a winning combination the player is awarded an award), and
responsive to a reel set advancement event occurring in association with a first symbol displayed at a first symbol display position of the first plurality of symbol display positions (¶130, Fig. 24, if the first feature game outcome includes a predetermined symbol):
cause a display, by the display device, of a second reel set comprising a second plurality of reels associated with a second plurality of symbol display positions. (¶130, Fig. 9, Fig. 24, if the first feature game outcome includes a predetermined symbol, the feature game advances to the second display area 60B),
cause a display, by the display device, of a second plurality of symbols at the second plurality of symbol display positions (¶130, Fig. 24, the reels of the second display area 60B are stopped to display game symbols for a second outcome), and
responsive to a replication event occurring in association with the first symbol displayed at the first symbol display position of the first plurality of symbol display positions (¶130, Fig. 24, if the first feature game outcome includes a predetermined symbol, the predetermined symbol is copied into the second display area 60B):
cause a display, by the display device, of a second symbol at a first symbol display position of the second plurality of symbol display positions (¶132, Fig. 24, if the second feature game outcome includes a predetermined symbol), and
cause a display, by the display device, of any second award associated with the second symbol displayed at the first symbol display position of the second plurality of symbol display positions and at least one symbol displayed at at least one of the second plurality of symbol display positions (¶131, if the second feature game outcome is a winning combination the player is awarded an award).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Nakamura discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the first symbol displayed at the first symbol display position of the first plurality of symbol display positions and the second symbol displayed at the first symbol display position of the second plurality of symbol display positions comprise different symbols (¶114-115, Figs. 15-16, the predetermined symbol is copied from the first display area 60A to the second display area 60B and they are simultaneously displayed (i.e., they are different instances of the symbol)).
Regarding claim 3, Nakamura discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the first symbol displayed at the first symbol display position of the first plurality of symbol display positions and the second symbol displayed at the first symbol display position of the second plurality of symbol display positions are related symbols (¶114-115, Figs. 15-16, the predetermined symbol is copied from the first display area 60A to the second display area 60B and they are simultaneously displayed (i.e., the second symbol is related as a copy of the first symbol)).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Nakamura discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the first symbol displayed at the first symbol display position of the first plurality of symbol display positions comprises a first wild symbol and the second symbol displayed at the first symbol display position of the second plurality of symbol display positions comprise a second, different wild symbol (¶114-115, Figs. 15-16, the predetermined wild symbol is copied from the first display area 60A to the second display area 60B and they are simultaneously displayed (i.e., they are different instances of the wild symbol)).
Regarding claim 5, Nakamura discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to another reel set advancement event occurring in association with the second symbol displayed at the first symbol display position of the second plurality of symbol display positions (¶116-117, Fig. 17, an instance of the predetermined symbol appears in the second display area 60B):
cause the processor to cause a display, by the display device, of a third reel set comprising a third plurality of reels associated with a third plurality of symbol display positions (¶116-117, Fig. 18-19, the in response to the predetermined symbol appearing in the second display area 60B, game play advances to the third display area 60C wherein the predetermined symbol is copied to the third display area 60C), and
cause a display, by the display device, of a third plurality of symbols at the second plurality of symbol display positions (¶118, Fig. 20, the reels of the third display area 60C are stopped to display symbols which are used to determine a game outcome).
Regarding claim 6, Nakamura discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to a replication event occurring in association with the second symbol displayed at the first symbol display position of the second plurality of symbol display positions (¶116-117, Fig. 17, an instance of the predetermined symbol appears in the second display area 60B),
cause the processor to cause a display, by the display device, of the second symbol at a first symbol display position of the third plurality of symbol display positions (¶116-117, Fig. 18-19, the in response to the predetermined symbol appearing in the second display area 60B, game play advances to the third display area 60C wherein the predetermined symbol is copied to the third display area 60C), and
cause a display, by the display device, of any third award associated with the second symbol displayed at the first symbol display position of the third plurality of symbol display positions and at least one symbol displayed at at least one of the third plurality of symbol display positions (¶111, ¶118, the third feature game outcome is evaluated for winning combinations and the player is awarded an award based on any winning combinations).
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to the replication event occurring in association with the first symbol displayed at the first symbol display position of the first plurality of symbol display positions (¶113-14, Fig. 14, the first feature game outcome includes a predetermined symbol in first symbol display area 60A),
cause the processor to cause a display, by the display device, of the second symbol at a first symbol display position of a third plurality of symbol display positions associated with a plurality of reels of a third reel set (¶115-117, Figs. 16-19, the predetermined symbol persists from the first display area 60A to the third display area 60C).
Regarding claims 8 and 12, Nakamura discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
no reel set advancement event can occur in association with the second symbol displayed at the first symbol display position of the third plurality of symbol display positions associated with the plurality of reels of the third reel set (¶125, Fig. 24, advancement to a further display area is based on a second instance of the predetermined symbol appearing in the feature game outcome (i.e., not based on the copied symbol)).
Regarding claim 10, Nakamura discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
at least one reel set is part of each of the first plurality of reel sets and the second plurality of reel sets (¶80-81, the same reel set 70 (e.g., reel strips 71-75) may be used for the primary game and each of the feature games).
Regarding claim 11, Nakamura discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to the replication event occurring in association with the first symbol displayed at the first symbol display position of the plurality of symbol display positions of the first reel set of the first plurality of reel sets (¶113-14, Fig. 14, the first feature game outcome includes a predetermined symbol in first symbol display area 60A),
cause the processor to cause a display, by the display device, of the second symbol at a first symbol display position of the plurality of symbol display positions of another reel set of the first plurality of reel sets (¶115-117, Figs. 16-19, the predetermined symbol persists from the first display area 60A to the third display area 60C).
Regarding claim 16, Nakamura discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
at least one: a reel set of the first plurality of reel sets comprises a reel set of the second plurality of reel sets, and another reel set of the second plurality of reel sets comprises a reel set of the third plurality of reel sets (¶80-81, the same reel set 70 (e.g., reel strips 71-75) may be used for the primary game and each of the feature games).
Regarding claim 17, Nakamura discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
at least one of: the first replication event and the first reel set advancement event comprise different events (¶109-110, game play advances from the first feature game to the second feature game even if the predetermined symbol does not appear, however, the predetermined symbol is only copied to the second feature game if it appears in the first feature game (i.e., advancement to the second feature game is based on a different event than the copying of the predetermined symbol)), and the second replication event and the second reel set advancement event comprise different events (¶109-114, game play advances from the second feature game to the third feature game even if the predetermined symbol does not appear, however, the predetermined symbol is only copied to the third feature game if it appears in the second feature game (i.e., advancement to the third feature game is based on a different event than the copying of the predetermined symbol)).
Regarding claim 18, Nakamura discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the first replication event and the first reel set advancement event comprises a display of a first wild symbol at a first of the plurality of symbol display positions of a first reel set of the first plurality of reel sets (¶109-110, ¶113, Fig. 14, the first replication event (i.e., appearance of the predetermined symbol) and the first reel set advancement event (i.e., execution of the first feature game) include display of a wild symbol in first display area 60A) and the second replication event and the second reel set advancement event comprises a display of a second, different wild symbol at a first of the plurality of symbol display positions of a first reel set of the second plurality of reel sets (¶109-110, ¶113, Fig. 14, the second replication event (i.e., appearance of the predetermined symbol) and the second reel set advancement event (i.e., execution of the second feature game) include display of a wild symbol in first display area 60B).
Regarding claim 19, Nakamura discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the first replication event comprises replicating a first symbol displayed at a first of the plurality of symbol display positions of a first reel set of the first plurality of reel sets to one of the symbol display positions of one of any higher rated reel sets of the first plurality of reel sets (¶82, ¶113-114, Figs. 14-15, if the first feature game outcome includes a predetermined symbol, the predetermined symbol is then copied into the second display area 60B, wherein the predetermined symbol acts as a wild symbol in the second feature game, which allows for a greater chance of a player obtaining a winning outcome which the examiner interprets as being higher rated).
Regarding claim 20, Nakamura discloses that which is discussed above, and further
the first replication event comprises replicating the first symbol to one of the symbol display positions of each of the reel sets of the second plurality of reel sets (¶115-117, Figs. 16-19, the predetermined symbol persists from the first display area 60A to the third display area 60C).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that, in light of Enfish the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because software claims are not inherently abstract (See Remarks, pg. 9). The examiner must respectfully disagree. In Enfish, the claims were directed to a specific improvement in computer functionality itself (i.e., a self-referential table). Here, the instant claims are directed to rules for playing a wagering game, including displaying reel sets, determining symbol events, and replicating symbols. These operations constitute game logic, which the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines expressly identify as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Unlike Enfish, the instant claims do not improve the function of a computer, processor, memory or communication protocol. These generic computer elements are used as a tool to perform the game logic, without any additional elements which add “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Applicant appears to argue that the claims are improperly identified at a “high level of abstraction” (See Remarks, pg. 9). The examiner must respectfully disagree. The examiner’s characterization is grounded in the actual claim language, broadly and reasonably interpreted in light of the specification. Specifically, the instant claims recite steps such as determining whether a “replication event” or “reel set advancement event” has occurred, displaying additional reel sets based on those events and replicating designated symbols across reel sets, all of which are activities which fall within the realm of game play logic. The claims do not recite any improvement to the computer functionality (e.g., new data structures, unconventional communication protocols, etc.) or any technological improvement to the processor, memory, or gaming hardware. Rather, the claims merely use generic computing components to implement the game play logic, which the courts have consistently held to be abstract. Further, applicant’s specification describes the system components and their interactions only at a high level of generality, relying on broadly stated processors, memory devices, communication interfaces and software modules, without disclosing any specific technical improvements to their operations. Accordingly, the examiner’s characterization is not an improper abstraction but an accurate reflection of the claims when read in light of the specification.
Applicant argues that the additional elements integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by overcoming the technical limitations of “prior systems being unable to replicate currently displayed symbols… due to the limited amount of display area available” (See Remarks, pgs. 9-10). The examiner must respectfully disagree. The alleged “technical problem” is not a computing problem recognized under 35 U.S.C. 101, but rather, is a game design constraint, not a limitation of computer technology. The claims do not improve the computing system (i.e., improved display hardware, rendering pipelines, memory management or graphical processing, etc.). They simply specify when and how reel sets are show as part of game rules, using generic computing components to implement the game rules.
Applicant argues that the instant claims provide an improvement to computer game technology similar to the claims found allowable in Core Wireless Licensing SARLv LG Electronics (See Remarks, pgs. 10-11). The examiner must respectfully disagree. The instant claims are not like those in Core Wireless. In that case, there was a technical problem having to do with the size of the display screen. The screen was too small to allow efficient use. The claims in Core Wireless provided specific improvements to the UI that solved this technical problem. Applicant’s claimed invention does not address any technical problems with EMG displays, nor do the claims provide any specific improvements to the UI design. Rather, applicant’s claimed “interface improvements” relate to thematic game content (e.g., reel sets, symbols, replication events). Theses are not improvements to computer UI technology, but improvements to the presentation of wagering game. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that game machine UI changes are not technical improvements (See In re Smith and Planet Bingo).
Applicant argues that similar to Core Wireless Licensing the claims “delimit the type of data to be displayed…and how to display it” (See Remarks, pgs. 11-12). The examiner must respectfully disagree. While the claims recite detailed steps for displaying reel sets and symbols, specificity does not confer eligibility. The Feder Circuit has held that even highly detailed game rules remail abstract. (See In re Smith). The “type of data” (e.g., symbols, reel sets) and “how to display it” (e.g., advancement events, replication events) are game specific rules, not technical display improvements.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Nakamura fails to disclose a symbol that both triggers advancement to another reel set and is also copied into that reel set (See Remarks, pgs. 12-14). The examiner must respectfully disagree. Nakamura expressly teaches both advancements based on a trigger symbol and copying of a predetermined symbol into subsequent display areas. Nakamura discloses that when a trigger condition is met, (e.g., three Trig symbols) the feature game is initiated and additional display areas are unlocked (¶106-108). Nakamura further discloses copying a predetermined symbol from one display area to the next (¶13-17, ¶23-27). The copying is performed based on the appearance of the predetermined symbol in the feature game outcome, not on whether the symbol remains visible after subsequent reel spins.
Applicant argues that the predetermined symbol is “removed” and therefore cannot be copied (See Remarks, pgs. 12-13). The examiner must respectfully disagree. Nakamura repeatedly teaches copying the predetermined symbol because it appeared in the outcome, not because it remains displayed (¶13, ¶14, ¶23-24). The visibility of the symbol after spinning is not relevant to the copying operation. Further, while the amended claim language requires that the reel set advancement event and the replication event occur “in association with the same first symbol”, the claims do not require that the symbol remain displayed after the reels spin, that type symbol be visible at the time of replication, that the symbol itself cause both events or that the symbol be the same type of symbol used in both operations. Applicant’s arguments are drawn to additional functionalities which are not recited in the claims and therefore constitute an improper importing of limitations from the specification. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Nakamura discloses a symbol that is associated with advancement (e.g., Trig symbol) and is associated with replication (e.g., predetermined symbol) and teaches copying based on the appearance of the symbol in the outcome, not on its continues display (¶12-14, ¶23-24).
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 JASON PINHEIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-1350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00A-4:30P ET.
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.
/Jason Pinheiro/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights