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 12/30/2025.
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 and 5-10 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 process without significantly more. As per step 1 examiner recognizes the claims are directed towards a gaming machine or a method using computer elements to perform a game. Therefore step 1 is met. As per step 2A the claim(s) recite(s) “spin and stop the plurality of reels in response to operating the operation unit by the player to form symbol arrangements; animate the display area to enlarge the cell matrix displaying symbols after the plurality of reels are stopped and the symbol arrangements are formed to increase a number of rows displayed in the cell matrix, and display symbols in the enlarged cell matrix based on the reels; determine specific symbols or types of symbols served as the specific symbols by a lottery using random numbers; animate target marks with the specific symbols to indicate a removal of the specific symbols; remove all specific symbols from the enlarged cell matrix; move subsequent symbols following the removed symbols with respect to a spin direction of the reel to fill positions of the removed symbols; highlighting the credit symbols and reduce a brightness of other symbols; and display an award message overlaying the enlarged cell matrix based on the credit values associated with the credit symbols displayed on the display unit after moving the subsequent symbols.” directed towards a slot game which comprises reels with credit symbols which forms an award wherein specific symbols in an outcome are removed and replaced in a spin direction by new symbols with additional awards determined. Further dependent claims cover how specific symbols are determined, means to display, and award determinations. As per the credit award examiner recognizes that credits are commonly associated with a monetary value with at least paragraph [0042] of applicant’s disclosure showing credit values being exchanged for monetary value. Therefore examiner concludes the game includes an element of risk involving a play of the game in exchange for a financial reward comprising credits. This would read on a form of hedging wherein a risk is taken for a financial reward with an obligation from a player to a game provider based on how the game is played. Applicant’s amendment indicates the award is now presented as a displayed amount but the amount is based on the combined values of the credits of the credit symbols and therefore appears to be directed towards displaying how many credits a player wins. Therefore the financial component remains since an award is still indicated regarding the credit values. As per the mental step examiner cites to the bolded sections wherein a state of the game is observed to determine specific symbols and a rule is carried out regarding replacing the symbols. Additional determination is provided for determining a win outcome message based on displayed symbols. These are the mental steps of observation followed by applying a rule based on the observation which are steps that can be performed in the mind. For example following through on game rules based on a displayed state of a game can be done by an individual. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims remain directed towards hedging and mental steps in the form of game rules which provide a financial reward. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the elements cited above remain directed towards playing of a game involving hedging using rules that can be performed mentally and does not include steps that goes beyond those rules or which is not addressed in step 2B. Specifically a game is a series of rules which can be performed mentally based on observation and no recited steps go beyond conventional feature or extra solution activity that cannot be performed in the mind or which does not involve hedging. 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 machine comprising: an operation unit configured to receive an operation of a player; a display unit configured to partially display a plurality of reels each having a series of symbols including credit symbols, the credit symbols being associated with predetermined credit values; and a control unit connected to the operation unit and the display unit, the control unit including a processor programmed to:”, GUI, animation steps, and other associated hardware. 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 convention 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]). Hornik et al. (US Pub. No. 2006/0148548 A1) teaches "a video slot machine comprising conventional gaming terminal components including input devices, such as wager acceptor(s) 102, payout device 108, a main display 112, which may comprise a touch screen display portion 104, push-buttons 106, and an information reader (e.g., player-identification card reader) 110." paragraph [0022] wherein buttons include "buttons integrated with a touch-screen display, and allow players to select various options with respect to the games played on the gaming terminal 100" paragraph [0022]. Specifically it is conventional to communicate data to output to a user comprising animated reels 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 removing symbols, including replacement, to output a feature of the game since the displaying of this step is extra solution activity and directed to the outputting of data to inform a player which is conventional to the art. As per the GUI elements as shown by cited prior art the inclusion of a GUI, such as user actuated buttons on the screen to select wagering game options, is conventional to the gaming art and therefore the inclusion of this feature does not represent more than is conventional known or include a practical application that overcomes the identified exceptions above. Therefore the hardware and animation features do not provide a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elias (US Pub. No. 2016/0364944 A1 hereinafter referred to as Elias) in view of Hiten et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0371117 A1 hereinafter referred to as Hiten), Yoshimura et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0054129 A1 hereinafter referred to as Yoshimura), and Cuddy et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0183209 A1 hereinafter referred to as Cuddy).
As per claims 1 and 9-10, Elias teaches a gaming machine, method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program to be executed by a computer (abstract and paragraph [0053]) comprising: an operation unit configured to receive an operation of a player (paragraph [0109] bet input); a display unit including a graphical user interface (GUI) (Fig. 8A, items 808 see at least button on the user interface and paragraph [0150 wherein the interface is a touch screen) configured to display computer-generated images partially displaying a plurality of reels each having a series of symbols (Figs. 8A-8E see reels); and a control unit connected to the operation unit and the display unit, the control unit including a processor (paragraph [0047]) programmed to execute an algorithm to display an animated sequence of computer-generated images of the plurality of reels (Fig. 8A and paragraph [0107] instance of a game comprises a spin based on a player initiating a game) on the GUI including steps to : render a display area on the GUI including a plurality of cells arranged in a cell matrix including a plurality of rows and a plurality of columns, each column displaying a portion of the corresponding reel (Fig. 8A); spin and stop the plurality of reels in response to operating the operation unit by the player to form symbol arrangements (Fig. 8A and paragraph [0107] instance of a game comprises a spin based on a player initiating a game); animated target marks with the symbols to indicate a removal of the symbols (Fig. 8B and paragraph [0120] symbols to be removed are highlighted); remove all specific symbols from the cell matrix (Fig. 7, item 706 and 708 and Figs. 8C-8D and paragraphs [0121]-[0122] and [0128]-[0129] a scatter symbol is removed); move subsequent symbols following the removed symbols with respect to a spin direction of the reel to fill positions of the removed symbols (Figs. 8C-8D and paragraphs [0017] and [0128]-[0130] symbols descend down which is the direction of spin with reels spinning in a downward direction); and display an award message overlaying the cell matrix based on symbols displayed on the cell matrix after moving the subsequent symbols (Figs. 8D-8E and paragraph [0136] award determined after cascade). Elias does not specifically teach a game comprising a plurality of reels each having a series of symbols including credit symbols the credit symbols being associated with predetermined credit values and provide an award based on the credit values associated with the credit symbols displayed on the display unit after moving the subsequent symbols nor the steps of animating the display area to enlarge the cell matrix displaying symbols after the plurality of reels are stopped and the symbol arrangements are formed to increase a number of rows displayed in the cell matrix, and display symbols in the enlarged cell matrix based on the reels determine specific symbols or types of symbols served as the specific symbols by a lottery using random numbers; animating target marks with the specific symbols to indicate a removal of the specific symbols; and highlighting the credit symbols and reduce brightness of other symbols. However, Elias teaches highlighting winning outcomes including those symbols to be removed (Fig. 8B and paragraph [0120]), Hiten teaches a slot game comprising credit symbols (Fig. 8 and paragraph [0119]) which are cascaded down in a game based on other symbols being removed (Fig. 4B-4F) wherein values are accumulated based on credit symbols appears (Figs. 4B-4F see paid which is incremented as symbols appear), Yoshimura teaches a slot game (abstract and Fig. 3) wherein a type of symbol is designated as a special symbol via a random process (Fig. 4 and paragraph [0040]), and Cuddy teaches a slot game (abstract and Fig. 4) wherein a cell is enlarged at the start of a feature game (Fig. 6 and paragraphs [0086]-[0087]) thereby increasing the number of ways to win (paragraph [0089]). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Elias with Hiten, Yoshimura, and Cuddy, since Elias is modifiable to use credit value symbols since this is an easy manner to allow players to see how much they won without having to refer to a paytable since the value is present on the display and to include the highlighting feature, as shown in Elias Fig. 8B, for the scatter symbols since, as discussed in paragraph [0120], the purpose of the highlighting feature is to indicate to a player what symbols are to be removed which would naturally extendable to all symbols in order to better inform a player. Further Elias is modifiable to randomly determine which symbols are special, or designated as scatter, thereby increasing the variety in the game thereby allowing for non-standard outcomes to provide higher award to a player by designated different symbols types as scatter which increases variety in the game and replay ability as well as to use the extended array, as shown by Cuddy Fig. 6, in order to increase the ways to win, Cuddy paragraph [0089], which incentives a player to play the base game in order to win a chance at the feature game since the feature game would be perceived as having a higher chance to win by increasing the number of ways a player can win. As per the method of highlighting it would have been an obvious design choice to dim the other symbols since this would further emphasize the highlighted symbol thereby increasing the player’s ability to pick out which symbols are to be removed with examiner recognizing that the display uses lighting (paragraph [0186]) to display the images and therefore dimming or removing the lighting would be a modification on how an image is displayed.
As per claim 2, Elias teaches a gaming machine wherein when one or more specific symbols newly occur after moving the subsequent symbols, the processor is further programmed to repeat removal of the specific symbols and movement of the subsequent symbols until no specific symbols newly occur on the display unit (Fig. 7, item 714 to 712 and paragraph [0125] the cascade feature is a loop which continues until a termination condition occurs with the condition being no more cascade eligible symbols) and display the award message based on the combinations associated with the symbols displayed on the display unit upon occurrence of new symbol while repeating the removal and the movement (Figs. 8D-8E and paragraph [0136] award determined after cascade). Elias does not specifically teach a game comprising a plurality of reels each having a series of symbols including credit symbols the credit symbols being associated with predetermined credit values and provide an award based on the credit values associated with the credit symbols displayed on the display unit after moving the subsequent symbols. However, Hiten teaches a slot game comprising credit symbols (Fig. 8 and paragraph [0119]) which are cascaded down in a game based on other symbols being removed (Fig. 4B-4F) wherein values are accumulated based on credit symbols appears (Figs. 4B-4F see paid which is incremented as symbols appear). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Elias with Hiten, Yoshimura, and Cuddy, since Elias is modifiable to use credit value symbols since this is an easy manner to allow players to see how much they won without having to refer to a paytable since the value is present on the display.
As per claim 3, Elias teaches a gaming machine wherein each of the specific symbols is a symbol having a specific type (Figs. 8C-8D and paragraphs [0121]-[0122] see scatter symbols).
As per claim 5, Elias does not specifically teach a gaming machine wherein the processor is further programmed to determine one or more specific display positions other than display positions at which the credit symbols are displayed, by a lottery using random numbers, remove symbols displayed at the specific display positions as the specific symbols, and move the subsequent symbols following the removed symbols in the spin direction of the reel to display positions vacated by the removal of the symbols to fill the positions of the removed symbols. However, Elias teaches removing symbols from an outcome including a special symbol (Fig. 7, item 706 and 708 and Figs. 8C-8D and paragraphs [0121]-[0122] and [0128]-[0129] a scatter symbol is removed), Hiten teaches a slot game comprising credit symbols (Fig. 8 and paragraph [0119]) which are cascaded down in a game based on other symbols being removed (Fig. 4B-4F) wherein values are accumulated based on credit symbols appears (Figs. 4B-4F see paid which is incremented as symbols appear), and Yoshimura teaches a slot game (abstract and Fig. 3) wherein a type of symbol is designated as a special symbol via a random process (Fig. 4 and paragraph [0040]). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Elias with Hiten, Yoshimura, and Cuddy, since Elias is modifiable to randomly determine which symbols are special, or designated as scatter, thereby increasing the variety in the game thereby allowing for non-standard outcomes to provide higher award to a player by designated different symbols types as scatter which increases variety in the game and replay ability. Specifically by randomly determining which symbols to remove via the designating of a random special symbol increases the variety in the game.
As per claim 6, Elias teaches a gaming machine wherein the processor is further programmed to remove the specific symbols when symbol arrangements formed on the display unit satisfy a predetermined condition after the plurality of reels are stopped (Figs. 8C-8D and paragraphs [0121]-[0122] see scatter symbol rules for removing).
As per claim 7, Elias teaches a gaming machine wherein the processor is further programmed to remove the specific symbols by a lottery using random numbers (paragraph [0130] random process involved in removal and replacement).
As per claim 8, Elias does not teach a gaming machine wherein the process is further programmed to enlarge the cell matrix from an initial 5x3 matrix to a 5x5 matric. However, Cuddy teaches a slot game (abstract and Fig. 4) wherein a cell is enlarged at the start of a feature game (Fig. 6 and paragraphs [0086]-[0087]) thereby increasing the number of ways to win (paragraph [0089]). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Elias with Hiten, Yoshimura, and Cuddy, since Elias is modifiable to use the extended array concept, as shown by Cuddy Fig. 6, in order to increase the ways to win, Cuddy paragraph [0089], which incentives a player to play the base game in order to win a chance at the feature game since the feature game would be perceived as having a higher chance to win by increasing the number of ways a player can win. As per the size of the array and what is extended this is an obvious design choice by the operator based on how much they want to show new cells and what the desire for a base matrix and an extended matrix presented to a player would be.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3 and 5-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically regarding prior art applicant has amended to indicate the enlarging step is an expanded reel. See newly cited prior art which addressed this step. Specifically the feature by itself is obvious and does not render the combination as non-obvious in light of cited prior art.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that amended claims overcome the previous 101 rejection. See above regarding amended arguments to address applicant’s amendments. Regarding the GUI see section 2B which addresses GUI elements as conventional in nature. Regarding arguments with focus on example 37 it is unclear how the claims read on example 37 beyond the use of a GUI. The inclusion of a GUI does not of itself render a claim as overcome 101 but instead the GUI must represent a practical improvement or ties into the mental steps in such as way as to render the mental steps as being unreasonable to be performed in the mind. For example 37 this was the tracking of icon usage which is both practical and unreasonable to perform in the mind. Examiner contends in applicant’s invention the mental steps are game rules and the use of a GUI is a conventional means to output a result of the game. Specifically the GUI does not provide a practical application beyond the presentation of a game which is conventional in nature and therefore has not been found to provide a practical application. Specifically the GUI outputs the images of a game result which is known in electronic gaming. Merely performing a mental step on a computer has not been found to overcome 101 and therefore the inclusion of a GUI is just more language regarding computer functions. As per the unique images presented this is a theme of a game and is addressed in step 2B.
As per the amended language overcoming the organizing human activity exception this has not been found the case since the use of credit symbols remains and the award language remains now as a display. However a display of an award is an indication of an award being provided and therefore hedging remains. See above. Specifically if a player is informed of an award then the player is being provided the award.
As per arguments concerning innovation “[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.
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 2/27/2026