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 05/19/2026.
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 and updating the game-state data record to reflect the applied modifier value.” 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 and random number generator (RNG) programming stored in a second memory, the RNG configured to cycle continuously in the background between play cycles and during play cycles at a speed that cannot be timed by a player, 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,”, “maintaining, in a memory, a game-state data record indicative of game state across play cycles, the game-state data record including a current modifier value that is persistent across play cycles”, 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. The act of storing a state of the game in memory reads on the conventional computer feature of storing information regarding a computer process and would additionally be shown as a conventional feature as indicated in Acres since a state of the game would be required to be saved in order to process information. Therefore the act of saving information reads on conventional computer tasks. 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. As per the continuous cycling random number generator examiner finds that the particular random number generator used is extra solution activity since the invention is directed towards a play of a game and not how a random number is generated. Additionally examiner looks to prior art that shows the conventional nature of this feature such as "RNGs – What Are They, and Are They Random?" by Buddy Frank at page 3 “One gaming software engineer used the analogy that many of the early slot machine PRNGs were like a giant loop of random numbers that is constantly rotating. Once the spin or play button is hit, the computer program does a few quick housekeeping chores, like determining the credits played and the paytable, then stops on the number that happens to be looping by at that precise instant.” which shows the conventional feature of looping random numbers with the current random number selected at the time of determination to produce an outcome. Therefore the hardware and animation features do not provide a practical application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended claims overcome 101. See updated step 2B which addresses the additional elements.
Applicant makes practical improvement arguments regarding the amended inclusion of the elements addressed in step 2B. Regarding security this improvement is directed towards extra solution elements and additionally an improvement that is conventional in nature using conventional elements. Specifically securing machines is a conventional feature in the art and the motivation in conventional in nature. Applicant’s game rules are not directed or focused on increasing the security but instead rely upon citing conventional elements known in the art. The inclusion of security software modifies the security elements of the software and not the inventive steps of the catalyst symbol and the game rules regarding the symbol. The game rules, as recited, do not go towards security functions but instead are mental steps concerning the play of a game. The additional elements are therefore extra solution activity and further are conventional. Therefore this does not overcome step 2A.
As per memory states see above. Storing a state of a computing machine and then using that state for further calculations and display is conventional. For example this is the purpose of registers and buffers in computing as well as commonly known RAM. Applicant’s claims are additional not an inventive feature tied to how states are processed in a computing sense but instead are implementations of game rules. The flow or storage of argued states is no more than the carrying out of a rule and does not comprise an improvement to how states are handled in a gaming machine. Unique rules regarding a game that are stored as a state are not a practical improvement but instead the known storage of a state of a game. This would include long term storage since the storing of game data for long term is a conventional and well-known computer feature.
Regarding the animation examiner points to above step 2B. The act of animating unique game rules is not more than conventional in nature and the theme is extra solution activity. The act of implementing an exception on a computing machine does not overcome 101. Applicant argues that their disclosure indicates the animation comprises new improvements to the technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees and finds the animation is directed towards outputting a state of the game related to the rules and does not comprise a new improvement to the technology. Specifically the display still functions in a standard method and does not see efficiency improvements as opposed to other known games. Regarding new animations unless the animation comprises new techniques beyond displaying of a game state this reads on outputting of a game state which is conventional. Examiner requests clarity how the animation differ beyond outputting a state of the game based on a theme of the game.
Applicant makes a further argument that the machine recited is non-conventional based on the inclusion of various features which are addressed in step 2B. Specifically that multiple arts are relied upon as evidence. Examiner points out that the mere number of references cited in step 2B does not go towards proving unconventional elements but instead that it has to be shown that including known elements produces an unconventional machine. Elements like security software are known in the art and therefore the inclusion would not be unconventional. Adding more elements does not change the function of the machine to include security or add more to the game rules identified in step 2A. The same applies to how random numbers are determined, how information is saved, or how a display is output if those elements are conventional in nature. Additionally the inclusion of more elements read on extra solution activity since the inventive concept of the rules regarding the catalyst symbol functions as claimed does not include elements of security, how the random number is determined, how information is stored, or numerous other features conventional to gaming. Instead the inventive concept is how a game is played. As per the rules used adding behavior to the machine as a means to overcome 101 this goes against Alice wherein it is found even an inventive concept is ineligible if it is an exception even when performed on a machine. The inclusion of a machine does not overcome step 2B.
Applicant argues that fewer computer resources are used via the game rules implemented. Applicant cites to an element from the original specification which examiner cannot find regarding numbered indicia being used for improvements in processing efficiency. Therefore examiner cannot properly address this argument nor does examiner find this clearly recited in the claims. Clarification is requested. As per argument regarding the states of the game being saved as reducing processing needs this goes towards the purpose of saving information. Specifically the calculations needed to determine the information are not required if a save occurs which reduces repeat work. Therefore implementing this feature in game rules would read on conventional and well-known element and not a practical application.
Regarding arguments directed to the 8/4/2025 memorandum examiner believes that each claims has been addressed and not overly simplified. See above with each applicant arguments addressed regarding the claims as a whole with individual elements considered when appropriate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kono et al. (US Pub. No. 2010/0093424 A1) teaches a gaming system wherein a feature symbol includes the animation of changing the background color of other associated symbol positions.
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 7/30/2026
Prosecution Insights