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
After the amendments filed 06/12/2026, claims 8, 19, and 25 were cancelled and 26-27 were newly added. Therefore, claims 1-7, 9-18, 20-24, and 26-27 remain pending, of which 1-2, 4-5, 7, 14-18, and 21 were amended.
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 1-7, 9-18, 20-24, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed to at least one of abstract idea groupings, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines (Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity). Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
More specifically, regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a system and/or process, which is are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A-1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 recites the following, with the abstract ideas highlighted in bold, including an indication as to the abstract idea grouping(s) to which the indicated limitations belong to, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines. Independent claims 14 and 21, having substantially similar features, were also analyzed and to which the following conclusion is also applicable:
1. A computing system comprising:
a processor; and
a non-transitory computer-readable memory storing program instructions, including a set of instructions executable by the processor in different operating states in which different reel sets are used, wherein the program instructions, when executed by the processor cause the computing system to perform functions, the functions include:
outputting, by the processor, a graphical user interface comprising multiple symbol positions arranged in multiple rows and multiple columns, wherein: each column of the multiple columns is arranged to depict a spinnable reel of a reel set, each spinnable reel includes multiple different symbols from a set of symbols, and the set of symbols includes a particular symbol (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
outputting, by the processor, while the processor operates in a first operating state, the graphical user interface to show one or more spins of a first reel set for the first operating state, the one or more spins of the first reel set permitted for the first operating state when a counter in the memory is greater than zero (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
executing the set of instructions, by the processor, to determine, based on the one or more spins of the first reel set for the first operating state, a first running total of a number of times the particular symbol is displayed on the graphical user interface while the processor is operating in the first operating state and whether the first running total exceeds one or more of a first threshold of a first reward system or a first threshold of a second reward system (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes);
modifying, by the processor, at least one of the counter in the memory or a current level value in the memory in response to the first running total exceeding one or more of the first threshold of the first reward system or the first threshold of the second reward system (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
transitioning, in response to the first running total exceeding the first threshold of the second reward system, the processor from operating in the first operating state to a second operating state, wherein a number of thresholds in the first reward system of the second operating state is at least one more than a number of thresholds in the first reward system of the first operating state (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
outputting, by the processor, while the processor operates in the second operating state, the graphical user interface to show one or more spins of a second reel set for the second operating state instead of the first reel set. the one or more spins of the second reel set permitted for the second operating state when the counter in the memory is greater than zero (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
repeating execution of the set of instructions, by the processor to determine, based on the one or more spins of the second reel set for the second operating state, a second running total of a number of times the particular symbol is displayed on the graphical user interface while the processor is operating in the second operating state and whether the second running total exceeds one or more of a second threshold of the first reward system or a second threshold of the second reward system (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes);
modifying, by the processor, at least one of the counter in the memory or the current level value in the memory in response to the second running total exceeding one or more of the second threshold of the first reward system or the second threshold of the second reward system (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes).
The limitations in claim 1 (as well as claim(s) 14 and 21) recite an abstract idea included in the groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes, connected to technology only through application thereof using generic computing elements (e.g., a processor, a computer-readable memory, etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity.
According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines:
Mental Processes include concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion); and
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include:
1. Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices (including hedging (i.e., wagering), insurance, mitigating risk);
2. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
3. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The interaction 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.
Specifically, the instant claims include functions/limitations, as highlighted in the independent claim above, that constitute at least:
A. Wagering/Economic Concepts: (e.g., “modifying, by the processor, at least one of the counter in the memory or a current level value in the memory in response to the first running total exceeding one or more of the first threshold of the first reward system or the first threshold of the second reward system” and/or “modifying, by the processor, at least one of the counter in the memory or the current level value in the memory in response to the second running total exceeding one or more of the second threshold of the first reward system or the second threshold of the second reward system”), which in light of applicant' s specification, is interpreted as managing game awards, spin allowances, and wager multipliers during a wagering game (See Specification ¶128, wherein awards, multipliers, and safe zones are determined relative to a user’s wager), which is a form of hedging, which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices. These limitations are interpreted as at least Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims.
B. Following rules and/or instructions: (e.g., the functions governing game progression, including requiring counter values greater than zero to permit spins, changing reel sets between operating states, maintaining running totals of landed special symbols, and advancing levels upon meeting threshold conditions), which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People. These sets of game rules are interpreted as at least certain methods of organized human activity insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing or following the rules of a wagering game while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in the claims.
C. Concepts performed in the human mind (e.g., “…determine, based on the one or more spins of the second reel set for the second operating state, a second running total of a number of times the particular symbol is displayed on the graphical user interface while the processor is operating in the second operating state and whether the second running total exceeds one or more of a second threshold of the first reward system or a second threshold of the second reward system”), which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Mental Processes. These limitations are directed to tracking counts, evaluating mathematical conditions, and performing numeric comparisons that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims.
Regarding dependent claims 2-7, 9-13, 15-18, 20, 22-24, and 26-27:
Each claim is dependent either directly or indirectly from the independent claim identified above and includes all the limitations of said independent claim. Therefore, each dependent claim recites the same abstract idea as identified above. Each of the dependent claim further describes additional aspects of the abstract idea, i.e., additional aspects to the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes. For example, some dependent claims merely provide additional Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes to be performed and/or additional insignificant extra-solution activity, without anything more significant to establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A-2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1-25 clearly do not improve the functioning of a computer, as they only incorporate generic computing elements, do not effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Similarly, there is no improvement to a technical field. In addition, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way. The claimed invention does not suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer components are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of “a processor, a computer-readable medium”, etc. used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility. These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer,’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Further, the claims would require structure that is beyond generic, such as structure that can be interpreted analogous to a general purpose structure and general purpose computing elements in that they represent well-understood, routine, conventional elements that do not add significantly more to the claims. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. The elements of a processor and a computer-readable medium are well known conventional devices used to electronically implement a game as evidence by U.S. 2004/0204228, which discloses that a conventional gaming machine comprises elements such as a processor and a computer readable medium to control the overall operation of the gaming machine (¶58). See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The dependent claims do not add “significantly more” for at least the same reasons as directed to their respective independent claims, at least based on the position, as discussed above, that each of the dependent claims merely provide additional limitations to further expand the abstract idea of the independent claims, without adding anything which would establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Consequently, consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/12/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive
Applicant argues that the instant claims improve the technical fields of computerized gaming machines and software-managed, state dependent reward architectures, and thus, integrate any abstract idea into a practical application (See Remarks, pgs. 22-23). The examiner must respectfully disagree. An improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology must be directed to the operational technology itself (e.g., memory management, processor bandwidth, network protocol efficiency, etc.), not to the automated rules of a game executed on the system (See MPEP 2106.05(a)). The fact that concurrent reward systems and dynamic reel swapping are difficult or impossible to execute on a mechanical reel slot machine does not establish a paten-eligible improvement in computer technology. Mere reliance on the speed, capacity, and versatility of generic electronic processors to carry out complex game rules that cannot be performed mechanically is not an improvement to the computer itself.
Applicant argues that, similar to the patent-eligible claims found in McRO, the instant claims integrate an ineligible abstract idea into a practical application (See Remarks, pgs. 23-26). The examiner must respectfully disagree. In McRO, the claimed rules were specific mathematical formulations that automated 3D facial computer animation techniques, directly improving how the computer generated graphical animation data and transforming the technological animation pipeline. In contrast, the claimed rules of the instant claims govern scoring, symbol accumulation counters, threshold comparisons, and stat transitions within a wagering game. According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines rules for conducting a game or wagering event remain abstract ideas. Re-characterizing game logic (e.g., checking if a counter is greater than zero, updating a level value in memory, or scaling threshold counts) as “automated feedback loops” or “memory swapping” does not transform abstract game rules into a technological computer improvement.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/12/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
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 JASON PINHEIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-1350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00A-4:30P ET.
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.
/Jason Pinheiro/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights