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
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s arguments in the Response dated April 28, 2026 as part of the Request for Continued Examination directed to the rejection set forth in the Final Office Action dated January 29, 2026. Claims 1-3, 6-12, and 14-21 are pending in the application and subject to examination as part of this office action.
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, 6-12, and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, relies on the Mayo/Alice two-step analysis.
In step 1 of the analysis, the claims are evaluated to determine whether they fall within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In the present case, claims 1-3 and 6-8 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine), claims 9-12, 14-15 and 21 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), and claims 16-20 are directed to a non-transitory, computer-readable medium (i.e., a manufacture). The claims are, therefore directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner is directed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. The claims are compared to groupings of subject matter that have been found by courts as abstract ideas. These groupings include
(a) Mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity—fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
(c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1 recites (the abstract idea is underlined) a system, comprising:
a display device; and
at least one computing device, one or more of the at least one computing device is in communication with the display device and the at least one computing device is configured to:
determine gaming data comprising a plurality of outcomes for a plurality of historical wagering games associated with a particular user account;
determine a skill score corresponding to the particular user account based on the gaming data;
determine at least one dimension of at least one hitbox of a plurality of hitboxes based on the skill score, wherein the at least one dimension comprising a pixel height or a pixel width;
render, on the display device, a reel comprising a subset of a plurality of indicia and the plurality of hitboxes individually corresponding to a respective one of the subset of the plurality of indicia;
modify at least one attribute of a wagering game based on the at least one dimension;
rotate the subset of the plurality of indicia on the reel on the display device;
determine a latency period based on a pseudo-random value;
following expiration of the latency period, determine a collision of a selection object with a particular hitbox of the plurality of hitboxes based on a current position of the reel; and
in response to the collision, stop rotation of the reel at a particular position corresponding to a particular indicia corresponding to the particular hitbox based on a current value of the at least one attribute; and
determine an outcome of the wagering game based on a stopped position of the reel.
Claim 9 recites a method, comprising:
determining, via at least one computing device, gaming data comprising a plurality of outcomes for a plurality of historical wagering games associated with a particular user account;
determining, via the at least one computing device, a skill score corresponding to the particular user account based on the gaming data;
determining, via the at least one computing device, at least one dimension of at least one hitbox of a plurality of hitboxes based on the skill score, wherein the at least one dimension comprising a pixel height or a pixel width;
rendering, via the at least one computing device, a reel comprising a subset of a plurality of indicia and the plurality of hitboxes individually corresponding to a respective one of the subset of the plurality of indicia on a display device;
modifying, via the at least one computing device, at least one attribute of a wagering game based on the at least one dimension;
rotating, via the at least one computing device, the reel on the display device;
determining, via the at least one computing device, a latency period based on a pseudo-random value;
following expiration of the latency period, determining, via the at least one computing device, a collision of a selection object with a particular hitbox of the plurality of hitboxes based on a current position of the reel; and
in response to the collision, stopping, via the at least one computing device, rotation of the reel at a particular position corresponding to a particular indicia corresponding to the particular hitbox based on a current value of the at least one attribute; and
determining, via the at least one computing device, an outcome of the wagering game based on a stopped position of the reel.
Claim 16 recites a non-transitory, computer-readable medium embodying a program that, when executed by at least one computing device, causes the at least one computing device to:
determine gaming data comprising a plurality of outcomes for a plurality of historical wagering games associated with a particular user account;
determine a skill score corresponding to the particular user account based on the gaming data;
determine at least one dimension of at least one hitbox of a plurality of hitboxes based on the skill score, wherein the at least one dimension comprising a pixel height or a pixel width;
render, on a display device, a reel comprising a subset of a plurality of indicia and the plurality of hitboxes individually corresponding to a respective one of the subset of the plurality of indicia;
modify at least one attribute of at least one of the subset of the plurality of indicia of a wagering game based on the at least one dimension;
rotate the subset of the plurality of indicia on the reel on the display device;
determine a latency period based on a pseudo-random value;
following expiration of the latency period, determine a collision of a selection object with a particular hitbox of the plurality of hitboxes based on a current position of the reel; and
in response to the collision, stop rotation of the reel at a particular position corresponding to a particular indicia corresponding to the particular hitbox based on a current value of the at least one attribute; and
determine an outcome of the wagering game based on a stopped position of the reel.
The present claims are directed to analyzing patron performance in a gaming environment and adjusting one or more attributes of a wagering game based thereon. These steps fall under the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, they are directed to the sub-category of fundamental economic practices because the claims are directed to wagering games. In addition, the claims are directed to the managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because they recite the rules for playing a game. Finally, the “determining” steps are directed to mental processes because they could be performed in the human mind. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under prong 2 of Step 2A, the examiner considers whether additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. To do so, the examiner looks to the following exemplary considerations, looking at the elements individually and in combination:
• an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
• an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (not considered relevant to the present claims);
• an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
• an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
• an additional element applies or uses 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.
The additional elements in the present claims are a display device, at least one computing device, a reel, and at least one input device. The additional elements do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The additional elements do not implement a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. The additional elements do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The additional elements do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The examiner considers if the additional elements:
• add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional, as shown: a display device, at least one computing device, a reel, and at least one input device (Walker et al., US 2004/0082384 A1, components well known in the art, specifically a processor, Ram and ROM, a data storage device, a random number generator, a communication port, a hopper controller, a hopper, a video controller, a touch screen, a coin acceptor controller, a coin acceptor, a bill acceptor controller, a bill acceptor, a reel controller, reels, an input device, an output device and a sensor [0058]).
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
As a result, the claims are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Prior Art Rejections
There are currently no prior art rejections against claims 1-3, 6-12, and 14-21.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter. Specifically, applicant argues:
Applicant respectfully submits that the present claims, as amended, are not directed to "Fundamental Economic Practices or Principles." Rather, the claims relate to technical solutions for analyzing gaming results for a particular gaming account and adjusting hitbox sizes for determining collisions of rendered objects to change a difficulty of a wagering game. (Response [pp. 8-9])
The examiner disagrees.
The present claims are directed to a system for conducting a wagering game wherein outcomes are influenced by a player’s historical skill performance. Every step of this limitation is directed to the goal of providing a wagering game. A wagering game is a method of exchanging and resolving financial obligations based on probabilities. Both hedging and wagering game rules are methods of managing economic risk.
Although applicant seems to argue that Smith is not analogous because Smith was directed to a human dealer using a deck of physical playing cards to perform the series of steps for a wagering game on a table, the examiner maintains that fundamental analysis is the same. That is, the wagering game, as recited in the present claims, is still directed to a fundamental economic practice.
The fact that the rules incorporate a skill-adjustment mechanism does not remove the claim from fundamental economic practices – it merely describes a different set of wagering game rules.
Applicant also argues:
The present claims do not involve the management of personal behavior, relationships, or interactions between people at all. On page 6, the Updated Guidelines describes "Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People" as subject matter that related to "social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions." To illustrate claims that are not a method of organizing human activity, the Office issued example 42 of "Method for Transmission of Notifications When Medical Records Are Updated" (hereinafter "Example 42") in the 2019 PEG Examples 37 through 42 (hereinafter "Examples"). Example 42 describes a "network-based patient management method that collects, converts and consolidates patient information from various physicians and health-care providers into a standardized format, stores it in network-based storage devices, and generates messages notifying health care providers or patients whenever that information is updated." The Example 42 recites that the claims include "a combination of additional elements including storing information, providing remote access over a network, converting updated information that was input by a user in a non-standardized form to a standardized format, automatically generating a message whenever updated information is stored, and transmitting the message to all of the users" as means to satisfy the integration of the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. (Response [p. 11])
The examiner is not persuaded that the present claims are similar to Example42. Example 42 is directed to method that allows for users to access patients’ medical records and receive updated information from other users is a method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The present claims have nothing to do with sharing medical records among users. Instead, the present claims recite rules for playing games. The Federal Circuit in In re Marco Guldenaar determined that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of "rules for playing games", which the court characterized as a certain method of organizing human activity. The examiner maintains that the present claims still fall in the sub-category of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
Finally, applicant argues
Applicant respectfully submits that the present claims are not directed to a mental process as alleged. The October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (hereinafter the "October 2019 Update") sets forth three considerations for mental processes when determining whether an invention is directed to an abstract idea, namely, i. "A Claim With Limitation(s) That Cannot Practically Be Performed In The Human Mind Does Not Recite A Mental Process," ii. "A Claim That Requires A Computer May Still Recite A Mental Process," and iii. "A Claim That Encompasses A Human Performing The Step(s) Mentally With The Aid Of A Pen And Paper Recites A Mental Process." (Response [p. 12])
Not all determining steps fall into the mental processes category. The examiner maintains that several of the “determining” steps fall within the mental processes category because they could be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. In particular, a user could perform at least the following steps:
determine gaming data comprising a plurality of outcomes for a plurality of historical wagering games associated with a particular user account;
determine a skill score corresponding to the particular user account based on the gaming data;
determine an outcome of the wagering game based on a stopped position of the reel.
These could be performed by reviewing historical outcomes associated with a particular user, give the user a skill score based on the game data, and finally, observing the stopped read position to determine an outcome.
The examiner maintains the claims recite an abstract idea falling into the categories of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes as described above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WERNER G GARNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7147. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-15:30 EST.
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, DAVID LEWIS can be reached at (571) 272-7673. 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.
/WERNER G GARNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights