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 October 30, 2025 directed to the Non-Final Office Action dated August 12, 2025. Claims 1-3 and 6-20 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 and 6-20 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 9-15 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;
render, on the display device, a reel comprising a subset of a plurality of indicia and a 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 skill score;
rotate the subset of the plurality of indicia on the reel on the display device;
receive an input from a user;
determine a collision of a selection object with a particular hitbox of the plurality of hitboxes based on a current position of the reel when the input is received from the user; 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;
rendering, via the at least one computing device, a reel comprising a subset of a plurality of indicia and a 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 skill score;
rotating, via the at least one computing device, the reel on the display device;
receiving, via at least one input device coupled to the at least one computing device, an input from a user;
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 when the input is received from the user; 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;
render, on a display device, a reel comprising a subset of a plurality of indicia and a 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 skill score;
rotate the subset of the plurality of indicia on the reel on the display device;
receive an input from a user via a first input device;
determine a collision of a selection object with a particular hitbox of the plurality of hitboxes based on a current position of the reel when the input is received from the user; 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 and 6-20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, applicant states that claims 1-3 and 6-20 are not directed to a fundamental economic practice (Response [p. 8]).
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner determines whether the claims recite a judicial exception. To facilitate examination, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). 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).
One example of "fundamental economic principles or practices" is the rules for conducting a wagering game. See In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (describing a new set of rules for conducting a wagering game as a "fundamental economic practice"). According to the Court in In re Smith:
On the first step, we conclude that Applicants’ claims, directed to rules for conducting a wagering game, compare to other “fundamental economic practice[s]” found abstract by the Supreme Court. See id. As the Board reasoned here, “[a] wagering game is, effectively, a method of exchanging and resolving financial obligations based on probabilities created during the distribution of the cards.” J.A. 15. In Alice, the Supreme Court held that a method of exchanging financial obligations was drawn to an abstract idea. 134 S. Ct. at 2356–57. Likewise, in Bilski, the Court determined that a claim to a method of hedging risk was directed to an abstract idea. 561 U.S. at 611. Here, Applicants’ claimed “method of conducting a wagering game” is drawn to an abstract idea much like Alice’s method of exchanging financial obligations and Bilski’s method of hedging risk. (In re Smith, 2015-1664, slip op. at 5 (Fed. Cir. March 10, 2016)).
The examiner is not persuaded that the Court’s decision is limited to card games since the Court subsequently broadly states “we conclude that the rejected claims, describing a set of rules for a game, are drawn to an abstract idea” (In re Smith, 2015-1664, slip op. at 5 (Fed. Cir. March 10, 2016)). The examiner maintains that the present limitations fall into the grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity within the subgrouping of fundamental economic practices.
Applicant also states that claims 1-3 and 6-20 are not directed to management of personal behavior, relationships, or interactions between people (Response [p. 10]).
Applicant compares the present claims to Example 42, which relates to a method for transmission of notifications when medical records are updated. The examiner does not consider the claims of the present application similar to the network-based patient management method described in Example 42.
Instead, the present claims fall into the subgrouping of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the claims recite following rules or instructions of a game. The Federal Circuit 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. In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d at 1160-61; 129 USPQ2d at 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Finally, applicant states that claims 1-3 and 6-20 are not directed to a mental process (Response [p. 12]).
Applicant states:
a human mind cannot practically "receive an input from a user," "determine a collision of a selection object with a particular hitbox of the plurality of hitboxes based on a current position of the reel when the input is received from the user," 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 (Response [p. 12]).
The examiner agrees that some of the “determining” steps are not able to be performed by the human mind; however several of the “determining” steps may be performed by the human mind. A human may be able to “determine a skill score corresponding to the particular user account based on the gaming data”. A human ma be able to “determine a collision of a selection object with a particular hitbox of the plurality of hitboxes based on a current position of the reel when the input is received from the user” while viewing gameplay. Additionally, a human may be able to “determine an outcome of the wagering game based on a stopped position of the reel”.
So long as some of the steps may be performed in the human mind, the claims may fall into the mental processes grouping.
The dependent claims merely further expand on the abstract idea. When viewed individually and as a whole, the present claims do not recite patent eligible subject matter.
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 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