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 .
Status of the Application
This Office-Action acknowledges the Amendment filed on 11/26/2025 and is a response to said Amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 12 discloses “a first threshold” whereas it should be “the first threshold”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (What is the statutory category?):
Claims 1-20 recite a system directed towards game instances implementing stacks of sticky wild symbols. Thus, the claims are directed to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A; Prong I (Does the claim recite an abstract idea?):
Claim 1 recites:
A system comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more computer readable media comprising computer readable code which, when executed by the one or more processors cause the system to:
select first display symbols for a reel grid from a first symbol set comprising a plurality of special symbols from a first lookup table, the first display symbols being selected using a random number generator;
displaying a special symbol meter that indicates accumulated special symbols that are special symbols displayed on the reel grid over a number of spins, wherein the special symbol meter further indicates a first threshold;
determine that a number of accumulated special symbols tracked by the special symbol meter satisfies the first threshold of accumulated symbols, wherein the determination triggers:
selecting one or more reels for a stack of sticky wild symbols;
replacing one or more reels of the reel grid with a stack of sticky wild symbols that remain in a same reel position for all remaining spins of a current game instance, wherein the stack of sticky wild symbols comprises a single special symbol and a multiplier presented over the one or more reels of the reel grid; and
performing a lookup operation on a second lookup table using a second random number generator outcome to obtain second display symbols for a remainder of the reel grid without stacks of sticky wild symbols.
Claim 11 recites:A method, comprising:
selecting first display symbols for reels of a first game window using a random number generator, wherein the display symbols are randomly selected from a first set of reel strips from a first lookup table, the first set of reel strips comprising special symbols;
displaying a special symbol meter that indicates accumulation of the special symbols displayed over multiple spins, wherein the special symbol meter further indicates a first threshold;
determining that the number of accumulated special symbols meets or exceeds one or more threshold values, wherein the determination triggers:
selecting one or more reels for a stack of sticky wild symbols;
replacing one or more reels of the first game window with a stack of sticky wild symbols that remain in a same reel position for all remaining spins of a current game instance, wherein the stack of sticky wild symbols comprises a single special symbol and a multiplier presented over the one or more reels of the reel grid;
unlocking a second game window with an additional one or more stacks of sticky wild symbols in one or more reels of a second reel grid in the second game window in a same configuration as the first reel grid;
performing a lookup operation on a second lookup table using a second random number generator outcome to obtain second display symbols for a remainder of the reel grid without stacks of sticky wild symbols.
Claim 19 recites:One or more machine-readable devices storing instructions, wherein the instructions when executed by one or more processors, cause performance of operations, comprising:
selecting first display symbols for each reel of a reel grid of a first unlocked game window from a first lookup table using a random number generator, the display symbols for each reel of the reel grid randomly selected from a corresponding reel strip, each reel strip including a plurality of special symbols and having a value;
displaying a special symbol meter that indicates accumulation of the special symbols displayed on the reel grid over a period of spins, wherein the special symbol meter further indicates a first threshold;
advancing to a first level responsive to meeting or exceeding a first threshold of accumulated special symbols tracked by the special symbol meter; and
responsive to advancing to the first level:
selecting one or more reels for a stack of sticky wild symbols;
replacing one or more reels of the reel grid with a stack of sticky wild symbols that remain in a same reel position for all remaining spins of a current game instance, wherein the stack of sticky wild symbols comprises a single special symbol and a multiplier presented over the one or more reels of the reel grid; and
performing a lookup operation on a second lookup table using a second random number generator outcome to obtain second display symbols for a remainder of the reel grid without stacks of sticky wild symbols.
[the examiner submits that the foregoing underlined elements recite a) mental process because it can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) b) certain method of organizing human activity because they describe “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)”]
To further elaborate on the Examiner’s interpretation regarding the claimed invention being directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity, the Examiner believes the invention describe managing interactions between people and machine (ie: a gaming machine) in which rules or instructions for the gaming machine is being implemented. In this case, game rules are being applied, such as providing a reel grid in which symbols are displayed wherein certain symbols are tracked to determine if one or more reels are replaced with a stack of sticky wild symbols and displayed accordingly in order to provide a game instance to a player.
Step 2A; Prong II (Does the claim recite a practical application?):
The examiner submits that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or use a computer as tool to perform the abstract idea. Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons. The claim elements of claims 1, 11 and 19 above that are not underlined constitute additional limitations.
The examiner submits that the following additional limitation merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: display system, game controller, processor, gaming system, user interface, control system, and machine-readable device.
The Examiner finds that there are concepts regarding the application simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality.
For example, regarding the use of lookup tables, Gilmore et al., US 20090124371 discloses that lookup tables are known in the art and may be constructed to provide a determined statistical frequency of any particular outcome in the table (paragraph 132).
Wright et al., US 20080026831 discloses that when it comes to gaming devices, return-to-player (RTP) percentages are well known to one of ordinary skill in the art as it allows operators and venues to control gaming devices so that it meets jurisdiction requirements to allow wagering games to be implemented (para 7)
Mitelman, US 20090270163 discloses that a minimum return to a player percentage (RTP) is usually predetermined by legislation and, to avoid the problem that unskilled players may not reach that RTP, known gaming systems are designed so that the overall outcome of the game is largely independent of the skill of the player (paragraph 4).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology; there is no additional element that 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 merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Step 2B (Are there additional elements that are “something more” than an abstract idea?):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Best Applicable Prior Art
Regarding Independent Claim 1, the closest prior art Sidoti et al., US 20210217276 (Sidoti) in view of Borissov et al., US 20170053496 (Borissov) and Kitamura, US 20160093172 (Kitamura)and Marks, US 20200005600 (Marks) is interpreted as disclosing: A system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer readable media comprising computer readable code which, when executed by the one or more processors cause the system to: select first display symbols for a reel grid from a first symbol set comprising a plurality of special symbols from a first lookup table, the first display symbols being selected using a random number generator; displaying a special symbol meter that indicates accumulated special symbols that are special symbols displayed on the reel grid over a number of spins, wherein the special symbol meter further indicates a first threshold.
The prior art is interpreted as failing to disclose: determine that a number of accumulated special symbols tracked by the special symbol meter satisfies a first threshold of accumulated symbols, wherein the determination triggers: select one or more reels for a stack of sticky wild symbols; replace one or more reels of the reel grid with a stack of sticky wild symbols that remain in a same reel position for all remaining spins of a current game instance, wherein the stack of sticky wild symbols comprises a single special symbol and a multiplier presented over the one or more reels of the reel grid; and perform a lookup operation on a second lookup table using a second random number generator outcome to obtain second display symbols for a remainder of the reel grid without stacks of sticky wild symbols.
Regarding Independent Claim 11, the closest prior art Sidoti et al., US 20210217276 (Sidoti) in view of Berman, US 20040063488 (Berman), and Kitamura et al., US 20160093172 (Kitamura) and Marks, US 20200005600 is interpreted as disclosing:
A method, comprising: selecting first display symbols for reels of a first game window using a random number generator, wherein the display symbols are randomly selected from a first set of reel strips from a first lookup table, the first set of reel strips comprising special symbols; displaying a special symbol meter that indicates accumulation of the special symbols displayed over multiple spins, wherein the special symbol meter further indicates a first threshold.
The prior art is interpreted as failing to disclose: determining that the number of accumulated special symbols meets or exceed one or more threshold values:
selecting one or more reels for a stack of sticky wild symbols; replacing one or more reels of the first game window with a stack of sticky wild symbols that remain in a same reel position for all remaining spins of a current game instance, wherein the stack of sticky wild symbols comprises a single special symbol and a multiplier presented over the one or more reels of the reel grid; unlocking a second game window with an additional one or more stack of sticky wild symbols to one or more reels of a second reel grid in the second game window in a same configuration as the first reel grid; performing a lookup operation on a second lookup table using a second random number generator outcome to obtain second display symbols for a remainder of the reel grid without stacks of sticky wild symbols.
Regarding Independent Claim 19, the closest prior art Sidoti et al., US 20210217276 (Sidoti) in view of Berman, US 20040063488 (Berman), and Kitamura et al., US 20160093172 (Kitamura) and Marks, US 20200005600 is interpreted as disclosing:
One or more machine-readable devices storing instructions, wherein the instructions when executed by one or more processors, cause performance of operations, comprising: selecting first display symbols for each reel of a reel grid of a first unlocked game window from a first lookup table using a random number generator, the display symbols for each reel of the reel grid selected from a corresponding reel strip, each reel strip including a plurality of special symbols and having a value; displaying a special symbol meter that indicates accumulation of the special symbols displayed on the reel grid over a period of spins, wherein the special symbol meter further indicates a first threshold; advancing to a first level responsive to meeting or exceeding a first threshold of accumulated special symbols tracked by the special symbol meter.
The prior art is interpreted as failing to disclose: responsive to advancing to the first level: selecting one or more reels for a stack of sticky wild symbols; replacing one or more reels of the reel grid with a stack of sticky wild symbols that remain in a same reel position for all remaining spins of a current game instance, wherein the stack of sticky wild symbols comprises a single special symbol and a multiplier presented over the one or more reels of the reel grid; and performing a lookup operation on a second lookup table using a second random number generator outcome to obtain second display symbols for a remainder of the reel grid without stacks of sticky wild symbols.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant presents arguments that “Reducing the number of operations for a game instance reduces the computation resources necessary in the gaming device. Applicant respectfully asserts that reducing the operations increases the efficiency in the underlying device and, thus, "improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field." Alice at 2106.04(d)(1).” in which the applicant also argued that “The displayed special symbol meter is a technical improvement that indicates to a player the number of symbols that have accumulated as well as a threshold to reach for more game features. This improvement allows a player to more easily understand how new game windows will be unlocked because the player may track progress with the meter, thus improving computer usability.” (bottom of page 9 to middle of page 10)
The Examiner disagrees and maintains that decreasing functions of a computer does not increase computer efficiency. In other words, decreasing the number of functions of an abstract idea (ie: a game utilizing game rules for presenting such a game), will still result in an abstract idea. Furthermore, the Examiner believes that the applicant’s argument that “the displayed special symbol meter…allows a player to more easily understand how new game windows will be unlocked because the player may track progress with the meter...” does not mean there is a technical improvement in the actual function of the computer/gaming machine implementing such game play, but rather an improvement to a player’s own experience. In other words, improving a player’s experience does not mean there is an improvement in the functioning of the computer/gaming machine.
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 JEFFREY WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571) 270-1344. 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.
/JEFFREY K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights