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 06/22/2026.
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 1-3, 5-8, 11-13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed a mental process without significantly more. As per step 1 examiner recognizes the claims include sufficient machine elements performing the game steps. As per step 2A the claim(s) recite(s) “a game program, the method comprising, by the processor of the server: transmitting instructions to a client device to cause a display of the client device to present a plurality of symbol- bearing reels and a base game array, the base game array having a first configuration; executing one or more first outputs of a continuously cycling random number generator to determine a reel stop position for each of the plurality of symbol-bearing reels to populate the base game array with symbols; and in response to the symbols including a combination of triggering symbols filling any column of the base game array: transforming an operational state of the gaming system from a base game state to a secondary game state, the transforming comprising: transmitting instructions to the client device to cause the display of the client device to present an animated reconfiguration of the base game array from the first configuration into a secondary game array having a second configuration, the second configuration being different than the first, wherein the first configuration is stepped such that a number of symbol positions in different columns of the base game array varies from each other and the second configuration is rectangular such that a number of symbol positions in different columns of the secondary game array is the same, wherein a total number of symbol positions in the secondary game array is less than a total number of symbol positions in the base game array, and wherein the base game array includes one or more symbol positions that do not correspond to any symbol positions in the secondary game array; determining, from the first configuration and the second configuration, which symbol positions of the base game array occupied by the triggering symbols do not correspond to any symbol positions in the secondary game array; and executing a conditional symbol redistribution process by redistributing one or more of the triggering symbols from the base game array to the secondary game array for use in a secondary game, wherein the redistributing operation includes: randomly redistributing, according to one or more second outputs of the continuously cycling random number generator, only those triggering symbols located in the one or more symbol positions that do not correspond to any symbol positions in the secondary game array, and carrying over any other ones of the triggering symbols from their symbol positions in the base game array to corresponding positions in the secondary game array, wherein an outcome of the secondary game results in an award of a number of non-monetary credits.” which is directed towards an invention regarding a slot game comprising a base array wherein in response to triggering symbols appearing triggers a secondary game array with a different configuration wherein a random distribution of triggering symbols occur for those triggering symbols located in the one or more symbol positions that do not correspond to any symbol positions in the secondary game array. Language further includes clarification on the design and number of positions from a first configuration to a second configuration. Amended language adds an additional determination step to determine which symbols in the base game array occupied by triggering symbols are not found in the symbol positions of the second game array. Further depending claims include elements regarding defining symbols to be value-bearing symbols and how array sizes are determined. Examiner recognizes the claims recite the mental step with focus on the bolded step “in response to” and rules regarding which symbols are selected for redistributing which constitute a mental step comprising rules for a game since it reads as a determining step wherein a consideration is made regarding the outcome of a game in order to apply a game rule. The game rules comprise the feature of observation of information and applying the rule accordingly to a state of the game. These are mental steps that can be performed in the mind and can be performed in the mind by an individual based on outcomes produced. For example observing the state of a game to determine if bonus triggering symbols occur is a step that can be performed in the mind. This includes amended language which is a determination rule which reads on the mental step of comparison which a person can perform by observing a state of the game and includes a person being able to observe and determine which symbols are found and not found in an array of symbol positions. Additionally language is directed towards the game rules of the design of the game arrays which examiner recognizes is a mental step of setting the rule for how the array is to be determined. Specifically it is a mental step to determine the number of reels, positions, or shape of an array from one game step to another and that this step can be performed mentally by a player. For example a player can determine that a second configuration should add or subtract a reel which would be a change to shape and number of positions and this step can be done by a player observing the state of the game. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it is directed towards a mental process in the form 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 performing a mental step based on a displayed outcome following game rules remains a mental step. 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 “gaming system comprising: a gaming machine including an electronic display device configured to display a plurality of symbol-bearing reels and a base game array, the base game array having a first configuration; and game-logic circuitry configured to perform the operations of: animating spinning and stopping the plurality of symbol-bearing reels according to one or more first outputs of a continuously cycling random number generator to populate the base game array with symbols from the stopped reels;”, “displaying of the secondary game array comprises animating reconfiguration of the array from first configuration to the second configuration; and redistributing one or more of the triggering symbols from the base game array to the secondary game array”, "prior to executing the game program, executing an authentication program on the server to authenticate the programming for the game program and the RNG, wherein executing the authentication program comprises generating a live authentication code from contents of the memory, comparing the live authentication code to a trusted code stored in the memory, and permitting execution of the game program and the programming for the RNG only in response to the live authentication code matching the trusted code", "maintaining, in the memory, a game-state data record indicative of game state generated during play of a base game and play of a secondary game;" a continuous cycling random number generator, and other associated hardware and computer steps. 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 conventional 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 spinning of a wager determining device (which would include reels or wheels) 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 displaying particular animations regarding an outcome since these display steps are extra solution activity and directed to the outputting of data to inform a player which is conventional to the art. 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. Even with this examiner points to "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 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) including the step of decrypting a hash value using a key and comparing the hash value to codes determined at runtime (col. 31, lines 5-10). This reads on similar authentication methods found in applicant’s disclosure at paragraph [0025] wherein a hash value is used to determine authentication when using a live code. Examiner further recognizes that a state data record reads on the known feature of saving information in memory and does not recite hardware that would go beyond conventional features of saving or record keeping. Therefore the hardware and animation features do not provide a practical application.
Allowable Subject Matter Over Prior Art
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-13, and 15-18 are allowable over the prior art but rejected under 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended claims overcomes the 101 rejection including based on previous inclusion of hardware language. As per the hardware see above step 2B rejection which addresses the elements as conventional or extra solution activity. This includes the element of the live code which reads on similar authentication method known to be conventional in the art. Applicant argues that the additional hardware provides a practical application since the game steps cannot be performed in the mind. Examiner however finds that the steps are mental steps with conventional hardware used to implement the step and notes that a 101 rejection cannot be overcome by having hardware perform an identified exception. As indicated in the above 2A portion of the rejection the identified elements are steps that can be performed in the mind. For example a person can operate a game by observing a state of the game, see symbol outcome, and make a determination what step should next be carried out based on rules. Performing steps based on rules are steps that a person can perform mentally. The hardware performing the steps are therefore addressed under step 2B as being conventional in nature. Therefore the inclusion of the random number generator, a live code for authentication, and other elements, even for multiple steps in the game, does not provide a practical improvement. This would also include elements of the server and processor since the inclusion of servers, client devices, network setups, and conventional computer hardware such as processors and memories goes towards conventional features which does not overcome a 101 rejection during step 2B. It is conventional to authenticate programs for security purposes, to use random number generators to produce outcomes, and to save states of the game when performing electronic games. The inclusion of a plurality of elements in step 2B also does not render the elements unconventional since the function of all the elements perform the known and conventional function of a wagering game machine. Therefore these elements do not overcome the rejection under step 2B. Additionally the elements included are drawn to extra solution activity since the act of authentication, how a random number is generated, and hardware components such as security elements are not tied to the invention but additional elements added to the claims. It does not matter to how the game rules function what means of authentication is used and the act of authentication is a known element in gaming since it is desired to secure gaming machine due to the cost involved and legal regulations. Therefore the inclusion of these elements does not overcome the 101 rejection.
Applicant argues against this previously presented argument regarding configuration being different between arrays with examiner indicating a person can determine to add or remove reels. Applicant argues that this is not present in the claims but examiner contends the example provided was that a person can modify the configuration of reel as a mental step. Therefore having limitations that indicate different array configurations or modifying the configurations would be a mental step. Applicant further argues this cannot be a mental step since some elements cannot be performed in the mind. Examiner contends the mental step portion is the decision element and that this is a known mental step to be indicating in a 101 rejection. Including computer elements does not remove the mental step and this includes the element of game rules regarding design of game elements. Therefore this argument is not persuasive. Further arguments regarding in response to and other determination rules are similar wherein applicant argues the determination is related to machine states. However examiner finds these machine states are the carrying out of a game state in the game and the mental step portion is directed towards determination or in response to elements for the game state. Therefore the game state element is identified as including the mental step since it is a step that can be performed in the mind to carry out a game rule. The act of carrying out a mental step on a machine does not remove the mental step.
Applicant argues a practical application based on the integration of the hardware features addressed in step 2B. This argument is similar to those addressed above regarding the conventional features not overcoming a 101 rejection under step 2B. Implementing a game on a computer does not overcome 101 unless the game can be shown to provide a practical application beyond the use of game rules on computer hardware. For example an improvement to the function of a machine. Applicant cites to paragraph [0006] and argues that the display method includes an improvement to the function of the machine by improving processor and memory usage. It is unclear how this is achieved beyond implementation of specific rules. How does a changing reel configuration improve the function of the machine and not be directed towards play of the game? Applicant argues this is an improper look at the argued display improvement however examiner finds that the elements are directed towards game rules. How the array is configured is not a technical improvement but is directed towards the play of a game. Applicant has not made it clear why a configuration is a technical improvement and is not instead drawn to game rules since the function of the array is a rule in the game. A game rule would be having an array that is 3x3 or 4x3 or other setups. The technical aspect still includes displaying the array as would be normally found and the function of the machine hardware would not differ in a technical way. There is not practical application found to having different array configurations at this time.
Applicant argues against the step 2B conventional features with focus on five references providing evidence of the conventional hardware and disputes that the combination of hardware would be conventional. The combining of hardware together to produce an unconventional machine would require the hardware being implemented in a manner beyond the extra solution activity that applicant currently claims. The type of authentication software used in the claims is not directed towards the inventive concept of the game. The type of random number generator is not directed towards the inventive concept. Applicants claims are directed towards rules for how to play a slot game and how the array is presented. It is not directed towards the hardware nature, security features, or random number generator of the claims. Therefore this argument is not persuasive.
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 9/11/2026
Prosecution Insights