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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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, 3-4, 6-11, 13-14, and 16-20 are pending. Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8-9, 11, 13-14, and 16-19 have been amended. Claims 2 and 12 were previously cancelled and claims 5 and 15 are cancelled herein. No new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative argues that pending claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, 13-14, and 16-20 are not directed to non-statutory subject matter because i) the claims are not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A-prong 1 (see Remarks, pg. 11-13) and ii) the claims effect an improvement in the technical field of electronic gaming systems which integrates the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2 (see Remarks, pg. 13-16). The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons provided below.
With respect to Step 2A-prong 1, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims are not directed to mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (see Remarks, pg. 11-12). In particular, the Applicant’s representative asserts that none of the recited claims steps, such as representative Claim 1 describe an abstract idea but are directed to “selecting a subset pool of potential symbol combinations based on simulations that are performed on the potential symbol combinations identifying maximized prospective game outcomes prior to the games being initiated” and are not capable of being performed in the human mind because they simulate a “large number of prospective game outcomes based on potential changes to initial game outcomes and storing a subset of the combinations in a memory based on the simulation”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Certain methods of organizing human activity include rules and/or instructions for managing a social activity such as rules and/or instruction of for managing a game in accordance with target return-to-player (RTP) by “selecting a subset pool of potential symbol combinations based on simulations that are performed on the potential symbol combinations identifying maximized prospective game outcomes prior to the games being initiated” are found to recite steps to manage the game (see Remarks, pg. 13). Alternatively, the claimed subject matter for identifying maximized prospective game outcomes prior to the potential symbol combinations may be construed as insignificant extra solution activity (e.g., pre-solution activity/data gathering) of the abstract idea to process steps and/or instructions of the game. Moreover, the Examiner is not persuaded that the claimed steps are not capable of being performed in the human mind because claims recite instructions to perform an observation, judgment, evaluation, and/or opinion such as: “determine that initial subset pool of symbol combinations do not collectively satisfy a target return-to-player (RTP) stored in the memory based on the maximized prospective game outcomes”. The Examiner notes that claims that require a computer may still recite a mental process when they perform a mental process on a generic computer, in a computer environment, or a computer as a tool (see MPEP 21016.04(a)(2)III). In this instance, the recited processor and/or subset selection operation recited to, determine that initial subset pool of symbol combinations do not collectively satisfy a target RTP, are found to recite an observation, judgment, evaluation, and/or opinion that are capable of being performed in the human mind and/or to be performed in a computer environment and a computer as a tool to implement the mental process. For at least this reason, the Applicant’s argument is not found to be persuasive that the claims are not directed to a grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A-prong 1.
With respect to Step 2A-prong 2, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims recite an effect that is an improvement to the technical field of electronic gaming system because they solve a technical problem of electronic gaming system that do not “enable strategic player-initiated actions during gameplay, which allow the player to potentially improve the outcome of the game over an initial spin of reels” because the outcomes of such games are difficult to control (see Remarks, pg. 13-14). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As acknowledged by the Applicant’s representative, the claims recite enable strategic player-initiated actions during the game to allow the player to potentially improve the outcome of the game over an initial spin of the reels which is analogous to rules and/or instructions for managing the play of the game which is directed to the abstract idea itself. It follows that this is not the type of technical improvement that solves a technical solution to a technical problem but rather to managing the player actions that modify the outcome of the game which recites steps of the abstract idea. For at least this reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Additionally, the Applicant’s representative asserts that under Step 2A-prong 2, the claims describe a technical solution to the problem of “generating randomized symbol combination outputs for game systems that enable player actions which modify the outcome” (see Remarks, pg. 13-16). Specifically, the Applicant’s representative argues that by generating randomized symbol combination outputs for the game system that modify the outcome, the claims recites a technical solution that the claimed simulation driver subset selection provides technical benefits by performing the “simulation of large numbers of potential game outcomes, and determinations of the maximized and minimized outcomes for the potential game outcomes, and determination of the maximized and minimized outcomes for the potential outcomes prior to initiating gameplay” and “by performing the subset selection operations by a back-end server, with the results being periodically transmitting to the gaming machine” reflects the asserted improvement in the Specification (see Remarks, pg. 14-16). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously noted, the recited steps and/or instructions to manage the game are found to be directed to the abstract idea which does not indicate an integration of the claim into a practical application under Step 2A.
Moreover, a review of the cited portions of the Specification indicate that the claimed steps and/or instructions that manage a skill-based electronic wagering game to allow the player the opportunity to alter the active play area with an inactive system and for the processor to simulate one or more predetermined and/or scheduled times are disclosed to i) provide additional excitement to the player (see Specification, 0021); ii) satisfying the target RTP for maximized and minimized game outcomes are related to mitigating risk and is to conform the game to player preferences, preferences of game designs, or casino operations (see Specification, 0059-0063); and iii) processing at predetermined times when the gaming device is not in use (e.g., prior to game play) which recites an improvement of the functioning of the processor that reduces processing needs and improved speed in presenting and displaying subsequent game rounds during game play. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. For instance, providing additional excitement to the player and/or satisfying the target RTP are not found to recite an technical improvement to the functioning of the computer but found to the abstract idea (e.g., managing a skill-based wagering game) which is not found to be support for a technical solution to a technical problem. Furthermore, whether processing the game prior to the gameplay as opposed to processing during the gameplay is not found to recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer because the same number of processing cycles would be required by the processor because the actual processing cycles to generate the game outcome are not reduced to process an instance and/or outcome of the game but just a desired result to processing the game outcomes prior to gameplay. The Examiner further notes, that there is no discussion in the Specification and/or the instant claims that indicate the process improves and/or reduces computational resources of the gaming system or how the back-end server improves the functioning of the computer. In contrast, the position taken by the Examiner is consistent with the Specification in which the aforementioned steps of the game are merely to meet regulatory requirements of a game of chance which does not integrate the claim into a practical application but is construed as being directed to the abstract idea (see Specification, 0043 -wherein generating random numbers to conduct game play and to ensure the game play outcomes are random and meet regulations for a game of chance). It follows that the additional limitations that are directed to simulation of large numbers of potential outcomes, processing the potential game outcomes prior to gameplay, and/or the backend server are directed to at least one of: managing the game outcomes of the skill-based wagering games, recite pre-solution activity that are directed to the abstract idea, and/or to recite a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection has been maintained below.
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, 3-11, 13-20 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, which are underlined below, found to be directed to a grouping of abstract ideas such as:
1. An electronic gaming system comprising:
a memory; and
a processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory, which when executed, cause the processor to:
initiate, according to a schedule stored in the memory and prior to initiating a first round of gameplay, a subset selection operation to generate a configured subset pool of symbol combinations from a plurality of potential symbol combinations, each symbol combination of the plurality of potential symbol combinations, including a matrix of active symbols and an inactive symbol, wherein the subset selection operation causes the processor to:
simulate, for each potential symbol combination of the plurality of potential symbol combinations, prospective game outcomes based on potential inputs to be received during game play corresponding to a change of at least one of the matrix of active symbols and the inactive symbol, wherein the simulation identifies a maximized prospective game outcome associated with each potential symbol combination; -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental processes
generate one or more outputs from a random number generator (RNG); -certain method of organizing human activity;
store, in the memory, an initial subset pool of symbol combinations from the plurality of symbol combinations, wherein the symbol combinations of the initial subset pool are selected from the plurality of potential symbol combinations based on the one or more RNG outputs; -certain method of organizing human activity;
store, in the memory, corresponding maximized prospective game outcomes identified from the simulation for each symbol combination of the initial subset pool of symbol combinations;
determine that initial subset pool of symbol combinations do not collectively satisfy a target return-to-player (RTP) stored in the memory based on the maximized prospective game outcomes; -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental processes;
transform, in response to the determination, the initial subset pool of symbol combinations to a configured subset pool of symbol combinations by changing the symbol combinations in the initial subset pool based on the maximized game outcomes of the symbol combinations, wherein the subset of symbol combinations collectively satisfy a target return-to-player (RTP); -certain method of organizing human activity; and
cause display of a first symbol combination of the subset of symbol combinations for a first round of game play. – certain method of organizing human activity;
The limitations, as exemplified by independent claims 1 above, are found to recite a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite a series of rules and/or instructions to manage a skill based symbol wagering game. Additionally, some of the limitations are found to recite a mental process because they recite an observation, judgment, evaluation, and/or opinion that may be performed in the human mind and/or by aid of a tool to implement the abstract idea For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent claim 1, 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: “initiate, according to a schedule stored in the memory and prior to initiating a first round of gameplay, a subset selection operation to generate a configured subset pool of symbol combinations from a plurality of potential symbol combinations, each symbol combination of the plurality of potential symbol combinations, including a matrix of active symbols and an inactive symbol, wherein the subset selection operation causes the processor to:” “from a random number generator (RNG);” “store, in the memory, an initial subset pool” “store, in the memory, corresponding maximized prospective game outcomes identified from the simulation for each symbol combination of the initial subset pool of symbol combinations;” “stored in the memory based on the maximized prospective game outcomes;” and “cause display of a first symbol combination” are found to recite steps directed to invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity such as pre-solution and/or post solution activity of the abstract idea, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). Moreover, the remaining limitations such as: “An electronic gaming system” comprising “a memory”, and “a processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory, which when executed, cause the processor to:” are found 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 claims, as exemplified by independent claim 1, are not found to 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”, “a memory”, “a processor”, “random number generator”, and “display” when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements are found to be invoked 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 A1) discloses a conventional gaming system comprises a memory and a processor to execute program instructions, a random number generator to generate random events in accordance with rules and/or instructions for a game are conventional and known components of a gaming machine (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0008, 0037-0040). It follows that when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements are not found to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
With respect to independent claim 11 recites substantially the same subject matter as claimed by independent claim 1 above. The claim is found to be directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding dependent claims 3-4, 6-10, 13-14, 16, and 18-20, the claims have been reviewed and are found to recite at least one of a grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)), invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificantly extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, the claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, 13-14, and 16-20 are found to recite an abstract idea 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