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 10/10/2025.
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 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, and 15-19 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 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 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 base game array includes one or more symbol positions that 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. 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 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”, 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 Therefore the hardware and animation features do not provide a practical application.
Allowable Subject Matter Over Prior Art
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, and 15-19 are allowable over the prior art but rejected under 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended claims overcomes the 101 rejection. As per the organizing human activity in the form of hedging applicant has amended to indicate only non-monetary unites and therefore this exception is no longer recited. Applicant argues for a practical application overcomes the mental exception rejection. Specifically that the invention provides enhanced visual feedback and novel gameplay aspects via a dynamic user interface versus a static user interface. Specifically it represents an improvement regarding a multi-game level display. As per the arguments regarding the physical structure of the array examiner notes that the array recited is virtual and therefore this argument is not persuasive. If applicant intends to claim a mechanical slot array then applicant should clarify the language which may represent non-conventional hardware. Regarding novel gameplay aspects “[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89–90 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (same for obviousness) (Symantec). The claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter and there novel gameplay aspects would not overcome the rejection under step 2A. Regarding enhanced visual aspects the currently claims are not drawn to a technology improvement to the display but instead to a outputting of a particular game state based on followed game rules. Specifically it is the conventional step of outputting data to a screen for game with the particular displayed elements related to a theme and therefore extra solution activity. Changing the image in a dynamic fashion goes towards conventional features of animating game outcomes in a game which necessarily involves a dynamic change based on a state of a game. For example what symbols are shown based on a random number generator is a known animation technique of electronic gaming (see above cited prior art in step 2B rejection) and therefore the act of a dynamic animation is known in the art. The specific animation used is a theme of the game and not a technology improvement in this case. Specifically what array is shown, what symbols are shown, and how they are animated as recite in the claims is a means to output a state of the game and does not include improvements to how computer displays function. Applicant should indicate how this modifies the function of the machine beyond what images are animated. Does the machine run in a more efficient manner based on steps used would be a possible practical improvement.
As per the random number generator applicant argues similar grounds for innovation using a conventional feature. The claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter and there novel gameplay aspects would not overcome the rejection under step 2A. Using a random number generator to perform unique game steps does not overcome the mental step exception because performing unique steps is not an improvement within itself. Nor do unique game steps comprising unconventional features as per step 2B. The steps are mental steps with conventional hardware used to implement the step. Therefore the inclusion of the random number generator, even for multiple steps in the game, does not provide a practical improvement. Applicant should look to see if the steps performed conserve computer resources as a possible practical improvement.
Conclusion
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 2/24/2026