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 Arguments
This office action is in response to amendments filed on 05/29/2026.
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 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to organizing human activity in the form of fundamental economic activities directed to hedging (wagering games are recognized as a form of hedging) and a mental step without significantly more. As per step 1 examiner recognizes the claims include sufficient recitation of machine elements. As per step 2A the claim(s) recite(s) “method of operating a gaming machine, the gaming machine including a gaming cabinet and game-logic circuitry secured within a locked box inside the gaming cabinet, the game-logic circuitry including memory storing programming for a random number generator that cycles continuously in the background between games and during game play at a speed that cannot be timed by the player and a wagering game, the method comprising the operations of: prior to executing the wagering game, executing an authentication program on the gaming machine to authenticate the programming: conducting, by the game-logic circuitry operating in an authenticated state, a game including: displaying, on an electronic display device, a tier indicator, a transformation indicator, a plurality of reels and an array, the plurality of reels bearing a plurality of symbols, the plurality of symbols including first symbols, second symbols, third symbols, and catalyst symbols: receiving, via at least one of one or more electronic input devices, an input indicative of a selected tier of the plurality of tiers, the plurality of tiers including a first tier, a second tier, and a third tier, the first tier being associated with the first symbols, the second tier being associated with the first symbols and the second symbols, the third tier being associated with the first symbols, the second symbols, and the third symbols; animating, on the electronic display device, the tier indicator and the transformation indicator based on the selected tier: transforming, by the game-logic circuitry operating in the authenticated state, one or more of the symbols in the plurality of symbols based on the selected tier, wherein, in response to the selected tier being the first tier, animating the transforming of the first symbols into value-bearing symbols; wherein, in response to the selected tier being the second tier, animating the transforming of the first symbols and the second symbols into value-bearing symbols; and wherein, in response to the selected tier being the third tier, animating the transforming of the first symbols and the second symbols into value-bearing symbols and animating the transforming of the third symbols into the catalyst symbols; spinning and stopping the plurality of reels to land symbols from the plurality of symbols in the array according to one or more outputs of the continuously cycling random number generator, the transforming operation occurring before the reels are stopped; transforming, by the game-logic circuitry operating in the authenticated state, a determination of the landed symbols as represented in the game-state data record into a first defined set of display control signals configured for the electronic display device; and transmitting the first defined set of display control signals to the electronic display device to cause the electronic display device to render the landed symbols.” which discloses an invention regarding a wagering game comprising a plurality of wagering tiers associated with individual symbols which includes a transformation component of the symbols based on the wagering tiers such as example third tier having the first symbols and the second symbols transformed into value-bearing symbols. Further dependent claims include additional rules regarding symbols display or transformation, components of the machine, and where symbols will appear. As per the organizing human activity in the form of hedging see language regarding wagering which reads on a wagering game comprising financial value which is a recognized form of hedging. Additionally examiner notes that applicant has not removed “value-bearing symbols” and while awarding and wagering language is removed examiner recognizes that awarding language still remains with the “value-bearing symbol” as per paragraph [0035] of applicant’s disclosure. See “Each value-bearing symbol V is associated with a credit or currency value indicated on the symbol itself.” which is awarded per paragraph [0008] “In response to the landed symbols including a catalyst symbol, a payout is awarded based upon values on any value-bearing symbols among the landed symbols.”. Therefore examiner concludes that as defined by the disclosure that value-bearing symbols still read on the awarding of a financial value even with awarding language removed from the claims. Clarification is requested if value-bearing symbols is limited to embodiments wherein the symbol is not associated with a monetary value which is awarded. As per the mental steps see the steps “in response to” and “based on” regarding rules applied based on symbols appearing the game. This is the mental step of observing a state of a game and applying a corresponding rule which is a step that can be done mentally. For example determining what animation to provide, when to transform, or what tier to activate based on a user selection are all steps that can be done mentally regarding directing the step. Specifically the mental in response to step is separate from the display and animating steps addressed below. This includes the changing of the wagering step to a input step since this step now reads on the player action of making a choice in a game which is a mental action that a person playing a game can perform and which is regularly performed while playing a game. Specifically choosing an action to carry out in a game. The action of the game rules being applied based on this selection is a further mental process wherein rules are applied based on the observation of the state of the game including the state of which input a player makes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because a wagering game which is a form of hedging and 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 determining result for hedging based on random determination or performing a mental step based on a displayed outcome. 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 “the gaming machine including a gaming cabinet and game-logic circuitry secured within a locked box inside the gaming cabinet, the game-logic circuitry including memory storing programming for a random number generator that cycles continuously in the background between games and during game play at a speed that cannot be timed by the player and a wagering game, the method comprising the operations of: prior to executing the wagering game, executing an authentication program on the gaming machine to authenticate the programming: conducting, by the game-logic circuitry operating in an authenticated state, a game including: displaying, on an electronic display device, a tier indicator, a transformation indicator, a plurality of reels and an array, the plurality of reels bearing a plurality of symbols, the plurality of symbols including first symbols, second symbols, third symbols, and catalyst symbols”, “maintaining, in the memory, a game-state data record indicative of game state generated during play of the game;” 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. This would include display or animation steps regarding changing wagering tiers or symbols displayed since these are display steps related to the outcome or communicating the state of the game. 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. See Peek (US Pub. No. 2009/0203430 A1) regarding a lock box which contains the CPU and memory elements "As is generally known, a "brain box" is typically a sheet metal enclosure within the gaming machine that is adapted to house a number of critical components, such as the MGC or CPU, as well as various memory devices, such as some RAM, NVRAM, the hard drive, and other such components. This brain box can come with a lock, and may be removable from the gaming machine as an entire unit in some cases." paragraph [0052]. Therefore the inclusion of the lock box is conventional in nature and extra solution activity since the invention is directed towards the game and not the structure of the gaming machine. The use of a lock box for the CPU elements has no effect on the inventive concept and does not modify the claimed steps. 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). Therefore the inclusion of authentication software goes towards known conventional features in the art and are is also extra solution activity since the invention is directed towards the game and not the means to authenticate the game. Specifically the game steps are not modified based on how the game is authenticated. As per recording the state of the game and outputting the state of the game this reds on the conventional feature of the usage of memory in a computing device to store data and to process or output the data that is stored. This is a conventional feature of computing, including electronic gaming, and the recitation does not appear to add significantly more to the game steps beyond the known conventional feature of recording information. Therefore the hardware and animation features do not provide a practical application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that amended claim language overcomes the previous 101 rejection. Applicant argues that amended claims overcome the 101 rejection based on the inclusion of the recording of the game state. See updated section 2B wherein examine reads this as the action of storing information in memory concerning the state of a machine which is conventional to the art. Therefore the amendment does not overcome the current 101 rejection.
As per hedging applicant argues that hedging would not be applied to the act of wagering since the action of putting monetary value at risk differs from the cited court case Bilski. However examiner points out that in the game of wagering that a player or gaming operator puts monetary value at risk during the play of a game which is a recognized and identified form of hedging when it comes to gaming. An identified exception must fit into a category identified under the MPEP or 101 guidance but it does not need to recite the exact same language as examples provided. In this case it has been identified that wagering games are similar in the form of a risk being taken and therefore reading on organizing human activity in the form of financial obligations such as hedging. Therefore the rejection is maintained. As per the arguments that the symbols can be non-monetary in nature examiner points out that they can also be monetary in nature as per applicant’s disclosure. Applicant should indicate the non-monetary embodiment.
As per the mental step applicant argues s that the claims are specifically tied to a machine process such as the random number generation means. Examiner notes that this is addressed in step 2B wherein an exception is not overcome if the exception is performed via conventional hardware means or is directed towards extra solution activity. In this case the displaying of game data via a display is a conventional activity found in the wagering game art, see cited references above, and therefore the performing of the mental process on a display does not overcome the 101 rejection and provide a practical application. As per the features regarding the cycling random number generator see above wherein it is indicated in step 2B that the feature is extra solution activity since the particular random number generator used is not tied to the invention beyond extra solution activity (the game operates the same using any means of random determination) and that the specific feature is conventional to the art as per the newly cited reference. Therefore this feature does not overcome the mental process in step 2B. As per the security features see newly cited art to show these are conventional to the art including brain boxes and the use of authentication programs. Additionally examiner notes that these features are extra solution activity and do not go towards the function of the invention since the invention is directed towards game rules regarding the tiers. Since applicant’s arguments against the mental process relies upon the implementation of the process on a particular machine and that machine does not overcome step 2B the rejection is maintained. Specifically a mental process cannot be overcome by showing that steps are carried out by a machine if the machine is conventional and the process, outside the machine elements, can be performed in the mind. Determining steps to carryout in a game are mental processes which involve following rules based on an observed state. Displaying information on a display is addressed in step 2B and the cited features of applicant’s claims do not overcome step 2B.
Applicant makes practical improvement arguments regarding the inclusion of the elements addressed in step 2B. Regarding security this improvement is directed towards extra solution elements and additionally an improvement that is conventional in nature using conventional elements. Specifically securing machines is a conventional feature in the art and the motivation in conventional in nature. Applicant’s game rules are not directed or focused on increasing the security but instead rely upon citing conventional elements known in the art. The inclusion of a lock box for example modifies the machine hardware and not the award tiers which are the inventive feature. The inclusion of security software modifies the security elements of the software and not the inventive steps of the award tiers. Award tiers, as recited, do not go towards security functions but instead game rules. The additional elements are therefore extra solution activity and further are conventional. Therefore this does not overcome step 2A.
As per memory states see above. Storing a state of a computing machine and then using that state for further calculations and display is conventional. For example this is the purpose of registers and buffers in computing as well as commonly known RAM. Applicant’s claims are additional not an inventive feature tied to how states are processed in a computing sense but instead are implementations of game rules. The flow of argued states is no more than the carrying out of a rule and does not comprise an improvement to how states are handled in a gaming machine. Unique rules regarding a game that are stored as a state are not a practical improvement but instead the known storage of a state of a game.
Regarding the animation examiner points to above step 2B. The act of animating unique game rules is not more than conventional in nature and the theme is extra solution activity. The act of implementing an exception on a computing machine does not overcome 101.
Applicant makes arguments regarding processing and memory efficiency increases with recitation of paragraph [0006]-[0007]. Examiner has reviewed the paragraphs and finds that there is a general statement of wishing to improve graphics or to provide new animations. Regarding new animations unless the animation comprises new techniques beyond displaying of a game state this reads on outputting of a game state which is conventional. Examiner requests clarity how the animation differ beyond outputting a state of the game. As regards the efficiency in computing processes paragraph [0006] indicates there is a motivation to achieve this but it is unclear how award tiers reaches this goal. How are the game rules more efficient over known gaming? Clarification is requested since the disclosure does not make this clear.
Applicant makes a further argument that the machine recited is non-conventional based on the inclusion of various features which are addressed in step 2B. Specifically that multiple arts are relied upon as evidence. Examiner points out that the mere number of references cited in step 2B does not go towards proving unconventional elements but instead that it has to be shown that including known elements produces an unconventional machine. Elements like security software or security hardware are known in the art and therefore the inclusion would not be unconventional. Adding more elements does not change the function of the machine to include security or add more to the game rules identified in step 2A. The same applies to how random numbers are determined, how information is saved, or how a display is output if those elements are conventional in nature. Additionally the inclusion of more elements read on extra solution activity since the inventive concept of award tier rules as claimed does not include elements of security, how the random number is determined, how information is stored, or numerous other features conventional to gaming. Instead the inventive concept is how a game is played. As per the rules used adding behavior to the machine as a means to overcome 101 this goes against Alice wherein it is found even an inventive concept is ineligible if it is an exception even when performed on a machine. The inclusion of a machine does not overcome step 2B.
Regarding arguments directed to the 8/4/2025 memorandum examiner believes that each claims has been addressed and not overly simplified. See above with each applicant arguments addressed regarding the claims as a whole with individual elements considered when appropriate.
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 6/26/2026
Prosecution Insights