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 06/29/2026, claims 1-20 remain pending, of which, 1, 14 and 17 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 14 and 17, having substantially similar features, were also analyzed and to which the following conclusion is also applicable:
1. An electronic gaming machine comprising:
a housing comprising an access door;
a security monitoring circuit supported by the housing;
a display device supported by the housing;
a processor; and
a memory device storing a plurality of instructions, which when executed by the processor cause the processor to:
cause a display, by the display device, of a triggering event for multi-function symbols (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
cause a display, by the display device, of a plurality of different multi-function symbols, each of the multi-function symbols comprising different indicators that respectively indicate the different function of the multi-function symbol (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
cause a display, by the display device, for each of the plurality of different multi-function symbols of:
each of one or more activations of the multi-function symbol until the multi-function symbol is deactivated, wherein each of the activations of the multi-function symbol results in a random determination, via a random number generator, and a display, by the display device, of an indication of one of a plurality of different functions of the multi-function symbol, wherein one of the different functions comprises an addition of an extra multi-function symbol to the plurality of different multi-functions symbols (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes), and
an indication of a deactivation of the multi-function symbol, wherein the deactivation is associated with an indicated one of the plurality of different functions of the multi- function symbol, wherein the one or more activations of the multi-function symbol are sequential until the deactivation of the multi-function symbol and wherein the deactivation of the multi-function symbol is prior to any activations of a next multi-function symbol of the plurality of different multi-function symbols, and wherein for two of the multi-function symbols, the deactivations for said multi-function symbols are associated with different functions of said multi-functions symbols (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes);
when an opening of the access door is detected via the security monitoring circuit following an activation of a multi-function symbol:
automatically store, in a non-volatile memory subsystem, data associated with a state of the electronic gaming machine prior to the detection of the opening of the access door, the data comprising any activations of the plurality of different multi-function symbols, any functions associated with the activations of the plurality of different multi-function symbols, and any deactivations of the plurality of different multi-function symbols;
prevent advancement of a state of any additional multi-function symbols via storage of the data associated with the state of the multi-function symbols in the non-volatile memory subsystem, and
following a closing of the access door detected via the security monitoring circuit:
automatically load the stored data, from the non- volatile memory subsystem, associated with the state of the electronic gaming machine prior to the detection of the opening of the access door, and
enable advancement of the state of additional multi-function symbols; and
after a display, by the display device, of indications of deactivations for all of the multi-function symbols, cause a display of any remaining displayed functions of the multi-function symbols resulting from the activations of the multi-function symbols that have not been previously displayed (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity).
The limitations in claim 1 (as well as claim(s) 14 and 17) recite an abstract idea included in the groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes, connected to technology only through application thereof using generic computing elements (e.g., a processor, a memory, a display, a security monitoring circuit, etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity. According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines:
Mental Processes include concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion); and
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. In light of the applicant' s specification, several limitations identified above are interpreted as reciting rules for playing a game, which falls squarely within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities grouping. For example, the specification explains that the multi-function symbols are activated, provide functions and are de-activated according to predefined rules (See Specification ¶28). Theses limitations describe following a prescribed sequence of steps, conditions and outcomes that govern the player of a wagering-type game. The Federal Circuit has held that such game rules constitute abstract ideas. See In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the claim limitations directed to displaying symbols, displaying symbol functions, adding extra symbols, and presenting deactivation are properly categorized as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities, as they merely recite the rules and instructions for conducting the game, implemented utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in the claims; and/or
B. Several Limitations recite evaluation, determination and conditional logic that falls within the Mental Processes abstract idea grouping. Theses include, for example, determining whether a multi-function symbol has been deactivated, determining whether all symbols have been activated and deactivated, determining which functions are associated with deactivation, etc. The Federal Circuit has held that steps involving conditional logic or information analysis constitutes mental processes, even when performed by a computer. See Electric Power Group, 830 f.3d 1350 (Fed. Cor. 2016). Accordingly, the limitations involving determinations, evaluations and sequencing logic are properly categorized as Mental Processes, as they merely recite the abstract mental steps, implemented utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in the claims.
Regarding dependent claims 2-13, 15-16 and 18-20:
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 and/or Mental Processes. For example, some dependent claims merely provide additional Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes 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, a display”, 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.
In addition to the abstract ideas indicated above, the claims include additional limitations, such as:
“when an opening of the access door is detected via the security monitoring circuit following an activation of a multi-function symbol:
automatically store, in a non-volatile memory subsystem, data associated with a state of the electronic gaming machine prior to the detection of the opening of the access door, the data comprising any activations of the plurality of different multi-function symbols, any functions associated with the activations of the plurality of different multi-function symbols, and any deactivations of the plurality of different multi-function symbols;
prevent advancement of a state of any additional multi-function symbols via storage of the data associated with the state of the multi-function symbols in the non-volatile memory subsystem;
automatically load the stored data, from the non- volatile memory subsystem, associated with the state of the electronic gaming machine prior to the detection of the opening of the access door, and
enable advancement of the state of additional multi-function symbols”
As claimed, these additional elements are viewed as steps and/or instructions to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, perform extra solution activity of the abstract idea, and/or provide a technological environment to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and thus does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Further, applicant’s specification indicates that these additional elements are well-known general purpose components of a gaming system that when viewed alone and/or in combination do not amount to an inventive concept, but are merely invoked as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a technological environment to conform with regulatory and/or jurisdictional regulations to enable managing a wagering game on a gaming system, which does not provide significantly more to transform the abstract idea (See Specification, ¶145-171).
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, a display 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 and a display 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/29/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that in light of the Federal Circuits statement in In re Smith that “we could envisage, for example, claims directed to conducting a game using a new or original deck of cards potentially surviving step two of Alice”, that the instant claims are drawn to multi-function symbols that are “new” because each symbol comprises different indicators that respectively indicate different functions, and thus should be patent-eligible (See Remarks, pg. 11). The examiner must respectfully disagree. According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, symbols, icons, text, or visual indicators displayed during game play are information in nature (See MPSP 2106). They serve merely to inform the player of game rules, game status, award values, or the progression of play. Changing what a symbol depicts, assigning it new labels, or associating it with different game functions (such as credits, multipliers, or extra symbols) merely represents a change in the rules and content of the game. Conveying information or displaying new visual symbols does not constitute a technical improvement to the physical computer display or processor hardware. Because the newly recited multi-function symbols merely present game-rule data to a user, their alleged novelty does not provide “significantly more” or convert the abstract game rules into patent-eligible subject matter.
Applicant argues that the claims include limitations that cannot possibly be performed in the human mind (e.g., random determinations, via a random number generator) and thus are not directed to an abstract idea (See Remarks, pg. 12). The examiner must respectfully disagree. While a physical random number generator cannot reside in the human mind, the claims are not solely analyzed under the Mental Processes grouping. As set forth in the previous Office Action (See Non-Final Rejection, 03/31/2026), the claims include limitations which are directed to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, specifically rules for playing a game and following a prescribed sequence of rules (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). A method for conducting a wagering game by applying a specific sequence of rules (e.g., triggering events, symbol activations, evaluating deactivation conditions, providing awards, etc.) falls squarely into the category of organizing human activity. The fact that one of the game steps (i.e., random selection) is performed by an automated tool like a random number generator does not remove the underlying game rules from being an abstract concept under Step 2A, Prong One. Automating a rule-based calculation or selection using conventional computer components is evaluated under Step 2A, Prong Two, and Step 2B, where generic random number generation is well-understood, routine, and conventional in electronic gaming machines (as admitted in applicant’s specification, See Specification ¶127, ¶175).
Applicant argues that the added structural elements (i.e., detecting an access door opening via a security monitor, automatically storing multi-function symbol state data in a non-volatile memory subsystem, preventing state advancement, and reloading the state upon closing the access door), integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See Remarks, pgs. 12-13). The examiner must respectfully disagree. The claimed security monitoring circuit and non-volatile preservation mechanism operate purely as a peripheral security and recovery routine. Storing the game state when a cabinet door opens and restoring the state when the door closes does not change, improve or integrate the underlying game mechanics. Rather, it is merely pausing the game, saving state data, and reloading that data in response to an external event. Such data logging and retrieval constitute insignificant extra-solution activity and fails to integrate the abstract game rules into a practical application. Furthermore, applicant’s own specification expressly admits that stat-based memory preservation and access-door monitoring are standard industry features mandated by gaming regulations across conventional electronic gaming machines (See Specification, ¶157, ¶164, ¶174). Claiming generic computer components performing their well-understood, routine, and conventional functions does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(d), (f)). Accordingly, the claims merely implement an abstract method of organizing human activity (i.e., game rules) using conventional electronic game machine hardware operating in its ordinary manner.
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