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 Request for Reconsideration filed on 3/10/2026 and is a response to said request.
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 are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (ie: process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A; Prong I (Does the claim recite an abstract idea?):
Claim 1 recites:A method of operating a gaming system in association with a sequence comprising a plurality of plays of a game, the method comprising:
determining, by a processor, if at least a designated quantity of symbols were accumulated, over the plurality of plays of the game, at a plurality of symbol display positions of a symbol display position set associated with a progressive award, responsive to the determination being that at least the designated quantity of symbols were accumulated, over the plurality of plays of the game, at the plurality of symbol display positions of the symbol display position set associated with the progressive award:
determining, by the processor, if the symbol display position set active symbol display position set,
responsive to the determination being that the symbol display position set is the active symbol display position set, determining, by the processor, a first total award, the first total award comprising at least the progressive award and any individual awards associated with the individual symbols accumulated at the plurality of symbol display positions of the symbol display position set associated with the progressive award, wherein the accumulation of at least the designated quantity of symbols over the plurality of plays of the game comprises at least one symbol accumulated in association with one of the plurality of plays of the game and at least one symbol accumulation in association with another one of the plurality of plays of the game, and
responsive to the determination being that the symbol display position sets is an inactive symbol display position set, determining, by the processor, a second total award, the second total award comprising any individual awards associated with the individual symbols accumulated at the plurality of symbol display positions of the symbol display position set associated with the progressive award and excluding the progressive award, and displaying, by a display device, any determined total award.Claim 9 recites:A method of operating a gaming system in association with a sequence comprising a plurality of plays of a game, the method comprising:
displaying, by a display device, a plurality of ranked symbol display position sets, wherein each ranked symbol display position set is associated with one of an active state and an inactive state,
responsive to an occurrence of a symbol display position set activation event associated with a highest ranked symbol display position set in the active state and at least one ranked symbol display position set in the inactive state, modifying, by a processor, a lowest ranked symbol display position set in the inactive state to being in the active state, and
responsive to an occurrence of a sequence award determination event:
determining, by the processor, a total award, the determination being based on any accumulation of any symbols, over the plurality of plays of the game, at any symbol display positions of ranked symbol display position sets in the active state when the sequence award determination event occurs, and
displaying, by the display device, the determined total award.
Claim 17 recites:A method of operating a gaming system in association with a sequence comprising a plurality of plays of a game, the method comprising:
displaying, by a display device, a plurality of symbol display position sets, wherein each symbol display position set comprises a plurality of symbol display positions and each symbol display position set is associated with one of an active state and an inactive state,
displaying, by the display device, an accumulation of symbols, over the plurality of plays of the game, at a quantity of the symbol display positions of any of the symbol display position sets in the active state and any of the symbol display position sets in the inactive state, and responsive to an occurrence of sequence award determination event:
determining, by a processor, if any of the symbol display position sets is an active symbol display position set,
determining, by the processor, a total award, wherein the total award is based on any accumulated symbols of the symbol display positions of any of the symbol display position sets determined to be in the active state and is not based on any accumulated symbols of the symbol display positions of any of the symbol display position sets determined to be in the inactive state, and
displaying, by the display device, the determined total award. [the examiner submits that the foregoing underlined elements recite 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)”]
According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) "encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping." (Emphasis added)
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 (ie: determining a total award responsive to a designated quantity of symbols accumulated over a plurality of plays of a game and displaying any determined total award)
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 claim 1, 9, 17 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 device and processor
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:
Cockrell, Jr., US 20070057464, discloses that computer systems for implementing games can be suitable general-purpose computers having a processor and memory and are well known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 69);
Geisner, US 20080242421, discloses processors can be general purpose processor for implementing online games and are well known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 24, 34, 52);
Vancura, US 20120064961, discloses that, in general, the operating hardware and software necessary to implement a casino-based game is well known and is based on one or more communicatively interconnected controllers, processors, or microprocessors found within such a casino game (paragraph 26);
Reeves et al., US 20160063799 discloses that graphical user interfaces (GUIs) are arranged to display information regarding a program, software application or other element associated with a computing device and are well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 82);
Saffari, US 20030050111, discloses a conventional gaming machine (system) comprising an input device used to play a game, processor to implement the game, memory device, and/or display are used to allow a player to play a game to a determined outcome (paragraph 2).
The above helps to suggest that the claimed components are no more than generic well-known components.
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?):
Dependent Claims 2-8, 10-16, 18-20 do 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. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments in regards to the previously presented 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been considered are not persuasive for at least the following reasons.
Applicant argues that that the elements of the claimed gaming systems integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application by alleging that the claimed invention “employs unconventional persistent aspects in the form of providing accumulations of symbols at symbol display positions over a sequence including a plurality of plays of a game as well as the potential activation based on any accumulated symbols of a symbol display position set associated with a progressive award to include or exclude that progressive award at different points in time” and “harnesses the dynamic nature of symbol generations (and accumulations) to alter how the gaming system operates relative to the availability of a progressive award” while arguing that the “employment of accumulated symbols that are retained over a plurality of plays of a game in association with a determination that at least a designated quantity of symbols were or were not accumulated and a determination that a symbol display position set is or is not an active symbol display position set represents an improvement over prior methods which failed to utilize aspects from one play of a game to another play of the game. Put differently, the accumulation of symbols provides that a current play of a game is not only influenced by prior plays of the game but also influences future plays of the game. Such a configuration exceeds the rules of any particular game and rather represents a technical improvement to how to operate a gaming system not previously accomplished.” (starting at middle of page 8 to the bottom of page 10).
The Examiner disagrees because there appears to be no change to the actual gaming system, as claimed, nor any technological improvements. There appears to be no disclosure within the claim language that supports the arguments nor is there any disclosure within the specification that discloses of such technical problems in which the claimed invention provides the technical solution (ie: There is simply no specificity detailed that provides any explicit technological improvements to the gaming system itself. It appears Applicant is alleging that, since the gameplay is different, the claims set forth a practical application of an abstract idea via a gaming system. It is unclear how the specificity of the game rules, which is deemed the abstract idea, is somehow a technical improvement to the functioning of the game system itself. The claims merely recite gaming systems that, at best, include a processor, a memory device in which the gaming system, through generic computing elements, is simply carrying out or applies the game rules as claimed. As such, there appears to be no alleged technical improvements to the functioning of the gaming system. The Examiner believes there appears to be no change to the actual gaming system such that there is an actual technological improvement in the functioning of the gaming machine nor the gaming technology implementing game play, and even if there was as the applicant presents as an argument, there are no disclosures within the specification or the claim language that support this. In this case, the Examiner argues that the claimed invention changes the way a game is being played and what is being presented which is not the same as changing/improving the functioning of the actual gaming machine itself.
Accordingly, the Examiner must respectfully disagree that the claims recite patent-eligible methods for at least the reasons recited in the rejection as presented above.
Conclusion
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/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights