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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are pending. Claims 10 and 20 have been cancelled and claims 1 and 11 are amended. No new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative argues that pending claims 1-9 and 11-19 do not recite non-statutory subject matter because i) the claims are not directed to an abstract idea (see Remarks, pg. 8-10) and ii) the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea (see Remarks, pg. 11). The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons provided in the sections below.
With respect to the first argument, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims do not recite any methods of organizing human activity but are directed to “a specific electronic data structure (e.g., “reel data defining a plurality of reel strips, each reel strip associated with a respective one of a plurality of columns of symbol positions, the plurality of reel strips including a first reel strip associated with a first column of the plurality of columns and a second reel strip associated with a second column of the plurality of columns, the first reel strip including a first defined symbol of a plurality of defined symbols, the second reel strip including a second defined symbol of the plurality of defined symbols different than the first defined symbol and a processor that manipulates electronic data and generates an electronic display using this data structure”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are found to recite a certain method of organizing human activity such as managing a slot reel game including rules and/or instructions for a rule to adding a number of symbol positions upon appearance of a symbol combination in the first and second columns which is analogous managing a wagering game. The recited claims are not found to be directed to “a specific electronic data structure” but to pre-solution activity such as: “storing (1) reel data defining a plurality of reel strips” which amounts to extra solution activity to arranging symbols associated with the slot reel game to convey information to the player as to the state of the game. As noted by the courts, storing and retrieving information, even when limited to particular types of information (e.g., “a first reel the plurality of reel strips including a first reel strip associated with a first column of the plurality of columns and a second reel strip associated with a second column of the plurality of columns, the first reel strip including a first defined symbol of a plurality of defined symbols, the second reel strip including a second defined symbol of the plurality of defined symbols different than the first defined symbol”), is mere data gathering associated with managing the slot game which does not integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2. Moreover, the additional recitation of the processor to implement the recited features of the slot game and present them on an electronic display do not integrate the claim into a practical application because they amount to invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, performing insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection has been maintained below.
With respect to the second argument, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claim satisfies Step 2B of the 2019 PEG. Specifically, the Applicant’s representative maintains that the at least one memory storing “reel data defining a plurality of strips…different than the first defined symbol” amount to significantly more. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As asserted above, the claimed storing of reel set data in memory, as explained above, is regarded as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity associated in computing environments such as managing an electronic reel game which includes rules and/or instructions for managing the game. For at least these reason, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection has been maintained below.
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 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, recites limitations directed to a grouping of abstract idea such as:
Claim 1, An electronic gaming device comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory storing (1) reel data defining a plurality of reel strips, each reel strip associated with a respective one of a plurality of columns of symbol positions, the plurality of reel strips including a first reel strip associated with a first column of the plurality of columns and a second reel strip associated with a second column of the plurality of columns, the first reel strip including a first defined symbol of a plurality of defined symbols, the second reel strip including a second defined symbol of the plurality of defined symbols different than the first defined symbol and (2) instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
select, using a random number generator, symbols from a first reel strip for each symbol position of a first column of symbol positions having a base number of symbol positions; -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
select, using the random number generator, symbols from a second reel strip for each symbol position of a second column of symbol positions having the base number of symbol positions; -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
upon determining that the symbols selected for the first and second columns of symbol positions include at least one defined symbol displayed in the first column and at least one second defined symbol displayed in the second column, set, for remaining columns, a number of symbol positions by adding a number of symbol positions determined using the random number generator to the base number of symbol positions; -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
select, using the random number generator, symbols from at least a third reel strip for each symbol position of a corresponding at least a third column of symbol positions, the at least a third column having the set number of symbol positions; and -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
cause to display on a display device the plurality of columns of symbol positions including the selected symbols.
The limitations, as underlined above, are found to recite a series of steps and/or instructions for managing a reel game which is analogous to a certain method of organizing human activity. Furthermore, the claims as indicated above recite performing operations that amount to mental processes because they recite an observation, judgment, evaluation, and/or opinion that is capable of being performed in the human mind. For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A-prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations such as: “at least one processor;” “at least one memory storing (1) reel data defining a plurality of reel strips, each reel strip associated with a respective one of a plurality of columns of symbol positions, the plurality of reel strips including a first reel strip associated with a first column of the plurality of columns and a second reel strip associated with a second column of the plurality of columns, the first reel strip including a first defined symbol of a plurality of defined symbols, the second reel strip including a second defined symbol of the plurality of defined symbols different than the first defined symbol and (2) instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:” “using a random number generator” and “cause to display on a display device the plurality of columns of symbol positions including the selected symbols” amount to mere instructions to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), insignificant extra solution activity ((see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). For at least these reasons, the additional limitations are not found to integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2.
The claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements such as: “An electronic gaming device” comprising “at least one processor”, “at least one memory”, and “a random number generator” when viewed individually and/or as a combination of elements amount to reciting a highly-generalized computer that is invoked to implement the abstract idea, perform insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For instance, Vancura (US 2010/0029381) discloses a conventional electronic gaming device comprises at least one processor, at least one memory, and a random number generator to determine random events of the game (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0008, 0037-0040). For at least these reasons, the additional elements are not found to amount to significant more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Regarding independent Claim 11, the claim recites substantially the same subject matter as independent Claim 1 as analyzed above. However, the claim is different in that it is directed to the system embodiment as opposed to an electronic gaming device of independent Claim1. These differences do not alter the analysis of the claimed subject matter. The relevant analysis of independent Claim 1 is hereby incorporated herein. For substantially the same reasons as discussed above, independent Claim 11 is found to be directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding dependent Claims 2-9 and 12-19, the additional limitations have been analyzed and were found to recite at least one of: i) a grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)), invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). For at least these reasons, claims 1-9 and 11-19 are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
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 RYAN HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00-6:00 PM.
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.
/RYAN HSU/EXAMINER, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights