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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to amendments filed on 07/25/2025.
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, 6, 8-9, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mental process without significantly more. As per step 1 examiner recognizes the claims are directed towards a gaming device or include sufficient machine elements performing the method steps. As per step 2A the claim(s) recite(s) “the method comprising: executing, by an authentication program stored in a first memory, authentication of game-execution code stored in a second memory by generating a live authentication code based on contents of the second memory and comparing the live authentication code to a trusted authentication code stored in the first memory, and permitting execution of the game- execution code only when the comparing indicates a match; in response to the permitting, executing, by game-logic circuitry, the game- execution code to conduct a play cycle that includes generating a random outcome that causes a plurality of symbols to be displayed via a display device; maintaining, in memory, a modifier state that is persistent across play cycles and represents a current modifier value; detecting, during the play cycle, a catalyst symbol among the plurality of symbols: based on the catalyst symbol, determining an updated modifier value and updating the modifier state in the memory so the updated modifier value persists for a subsequent play cycle until changed by a later catalyst symbol: generating, based on (i) the catalyst symbol and (ii) the updated modifier value, display-control data that causes the display device to animate a linkage between the catalyst symbol and each of one or more modifier-affected symbols and to animate application of the updated modifier value to the one or more modifier-affected symbols; and after the animating, controlling the gaming device to apply the updated modifier value to at least one outcome associated with the one or more modifier-affected symbols.” A slot game comprising symbols generated via symbol bearing reels wherein in response to landed symbol in the outcome being a catalyst symbol causing a modification of the value of a modifier to be applied to modifier-affected symbols in the outcome and awarding the modified value. Further dependent claims include defining the modifier or value-bearing symbols and visual designs. As per the mental steps examiner recognizes the bolded sections regarding maintaining, determining, and based on are mental steps of observing a state of the game, remembering the state of the game, and applying a rule accordingly. Specifically the steps of observation and making determinations based on established rules are directed towards mental steps and can be performed in the mind by an individual based on outcomes produced. The step of remembering a state of the game goes to basic memory which is a step that can be performed by an individual and this would include remembering a previous state of the game. For example changes to a game state based on a rule and remembering it for subsequent plays is a step that can be regularly performed by an individual such as card games where individuals can remember what cards were previously played. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because remain directed towards a wagering game which is a form of hedging and a mental process in the form of game rules. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because remain a series of game rules. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because determining result for hedging based on displayed symbols or performing a mental step based on a displayed outcome. Specifically observing the state of the game and applying a rule accordingly remains a mental step and no recited steps beyond conventional feature or extra solution activity are recited that cannot be performed in the mind. Specifically following rules can be performed in the mind. Additional elements are addressed below regarding the display and hardware portions.
As per step 2B examiner recognizes that additional elements are directed to conventional activities or extra solution activity. See below.
Limitation “executing, by an authentication program stored in a first memory, authentication of game-execution code stored in a second memory by generating a live authentication code based on contents of the second memory and comparing the live authentication code to a trusted authentication code stored in the first memory, and permitting execution of the game- execution code only when the comparing indicates a match; in response to the permitting, executing, by game-logic circuitry, the game- execution code to conduct a play cycle that includes generating a random outcome that causes a plurality of symbols to be displayed via a display device; maintaining, in memory,”, and other limitations directed towards determining game outcomes or displaying results. The hardware elements are commonly found in the gaming art related to electronic slot machines or wagering terminals and therefore are no more than a generic recitation of computer hardware elements including network elements and therefore does not provide a practical application that amounts to more than the identified abstract idea. This includes the recitation of memory, processors, and displaying steps which are generically found in electronic gaming machine including the elements accepting wagers for the purpose of presenting an outcome and payout for the results. See US 6186894 B1 at col. 5, lines 25-38 regarding video slot reels including displaying outcomes and that the activity of spinning and producing random outcomes from a wagering game are convention activities well-understood in the art. See Acres (US Pub. No. 2012/0172107 A1) teaches within the electronic gaming art the use of a random number generator to determine numbers for specific reel stop positions in order to determine an outcome which is evaluated if it is a winning combination of symbols appearing on a played payline (paragraph [0073]). Specifically it is conventional to communicate data to output to a user comprising animated reels or static images to communicate an outcome and award due as well as the state of the game. Therefore these limitations do not provide a practical application. Further the means of displaying graphics and animations regarding a result or state of the game are conventional to the art and is directed towards extra solution activity as being a means to output information without changing the identified mental steps above. This includes the act of animating symbols to act in a certain manner to output a feature of the game since the displaying of this step is extra solution activity and directed to the outputting of data to inform a player which is conventional to the art. Takeda (US Pat. No. 6,190,257) the use of authentication programs before the start of an electronic game to confirm the game's authenticity are known including several techniques for performing the task (col. 30, lines 42-60). Therefore the inclusion of authentication software goes towards known conventional features in the art and are is also extra solution activity since the invention is directed towards the game and not the means to authenticate the game. Specifically the game steps are not modified based on how the game is authenticated. How a modifier is applied, how the outcome is generated in the game, or other steps does not depend on information from the authentication step outside of the start of the game. Therefore the steps of the invention are unrelated to authentication since how a game starts does not modify the functions of the game steps as claimed. Therefore the hardware and animation features do not provide a practical application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that amended features of the current claims overcomes the previous 101 rejection with focus on the authentication program. Examiner respectfully disagrees and cites to step 2B showing authentication programs in gaming are conventional for the purpose of security. Therefore the 101 rejection is maintained. See above. Specifically using authentication for gaming programs is known and the feature is extra solution activity since the function of the game is unrelated to how it starts. Specifically the claims are directed to a symbol game and not security features for gaming.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JUSTIN L MYHR whose telephone number is (571)270-7847. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM.
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.
/JUSTIN L MYHR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 4/2/2026