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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/30/2026 has been entered.
Procedural Summary
This is responsive to the claims filed 03/30/2026.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are pending.
Applicant’s IDS submission is acknowledged and provided herewith.
The Drawings filed on 9/16/2015 are noted.
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 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
The examiner follows the two step-analysis, as described in MPEP 2106 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html). The following diagram is an overview of the steps involved.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1
In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention such as a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The instant invention claims an electronic gaming device in claims 1-2, 4-7, a method in claims 8-9, 11-14, and a system in claims 15-16, and 18-20. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad statutory categories of invention. However, claims that fall within one of the four statutory categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas.
Step 2A
Step 2A has been further divided into two prongs as shown in the following diagram.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Step 2A, Prong 1
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon. The term “abstract idea” is not interpreted as a layperson might. Instead, the term “abstract idea” is interpreted as described in legal opinions by courts.
According to MPEP 2106.04(a):
the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Specifically, Independent Claim 1 and similarly recited independent claims 8 and 15, (and its dependent Claims) recites “1. (Currently Amended) An electronic gaming device comprising:
a display device (additional element);
an input device (additional element) operable to receive player input; and
a game controller (additional element) having at least one processor (additional element) and a memory (additional element) storing instructions, which, when executed, cause the at least one processor to:
determine a base game outcome in a base game window (steps or instructions or rules for providing a game involving managing interactions, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG);
control the display device (additional element) to present the base game outcome in the base game window by animating a plurality of metamorphic graphical elements (steps or instructions or rules for providing a game involving managing interactions, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG);
in response to the base game outcome, determine whether a trigger condition exists (steps or instructions or rules for providing a game involving managing interactions, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG);
in response to determining that the trigger condition exists, select a plurality of reel strips for a bonus reel spin, wherein each of the plurality of reel strips include one or more credit symbols, and wherein the plurality of metamorphic graphical elements are animated based on the outcome of the bonus reel spin (steps or instructions or rules for providing a game involving managing interactions, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG);
determine an outcome of the bonus reel spin using a first weight table (steps or instructions or rules for providing a game involving managing interactions, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG);
control the display device to present the outcome of the bonus reel spin (steps or instructions or rules for providing a game involving managing interactions, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG);
select a second weight table based on a combination of credit symbols from the plurality of reels that are in the outcome of the bonus reel spin (steps or instructions or rules for providing a game involving managing interactions, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG);
determine, using the second weight table, if one or more free games features should be triggered, wherein a determination of whether one or more free games features should be triggered is made based on a single random number generator outcome that takes into account a presence of two or more different types of credit symbols in the outcome of the bonus reel spin (steps or instructions or rules for providing a game involving managing interactions, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG); and
in response to determining that one or more free games features should be triggered, control the display device to trigger the one or more free games features (steps or instructions or rules for providing a game involving managing interactions, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG).
As indicated above when considered as an ordered combination, each of Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15 (and their dependent Claims) recite the rules of a wagering slot game with a bonus structure: a base game produces a randomized outcome; if the outcome triggers a bonus, a bonus reel is spun using a first weighted table; based on the symbols that appear, a second weighted table is consulted; the second distribution is then used (via a random draw) to determine which free-game features are triggered. These rules of a wagering slot game fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II) (rules for playing a game). The randomization steps independently recite mathematical concepts under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). See In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818–19 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (rules for conducting a wagering game directed to abstract idea); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160–61 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (rules for playing a dice game directed to abstract idea); Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F. App’x 1005, 1007–08 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computerized bingo game abstract).
Further, dependent Claims 2, 4-7, 9, 11-14, 16, 18-20 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.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the additional elements in the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. To do so, the examiner looks to the following exemplary considerations, looking at the elements individually and in combination (as set forth by MPEP §2106.05):
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element 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 above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1, 8, and 15 (and their respective dependent Claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: a display device, an input device, a game controller having at least one processor, and a memory, and one or more processors to perform the steps of, are generically recited computer elements in independent Claims 1, 8, and 15 (and their respective dependent claims) that do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. The Federal Circuit has expressly held that recitation of a wagering-game machine, even with named components, does not save claims directed to game rules. See In re Smith, 815 F.3d at 818–19. In order to be patent-eligible, software patents must make a technical improvement to a computer per se. The invention must provide a “technical solution to a technical problem.” A “technical problem” is a problem arising out of computers or networks. Nor do these additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Therefore, for at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 8, and 15 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG. Accordingly, independent Claims 1, 8, and 15 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
Finally, under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements:
add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims require the additional elements of a display device, an input device, a game controller having a processor, and a memory, and one or more processors to perform the steps of. These additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable a game to be conducted by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and storing data, (ii) automating mental tasks and (iii) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application.
The recitation of the above-identified generic computer limitations in Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, none of the Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B: NO).
Accordingly, Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and the 2019 PEG.
AIA Notice
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 6,234,897 to Frohm et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2001/0009865 A1 to Demar et al. and further in view of U.S. Patent 10,269,215 to Prabhu.
Regarding Claim 1, and similarly recited Claims 8 and 15, (Currently Amended) Frohm discloses an electronic gaming device, … a computer-implemented method, … comprising:
a display device (fig. 1);
an input device operable to receive player input (fig. 1); and
a game controller having at least one processor and a memory storing instructions (fig. 1, Col. 3:50-63), which, when executed, cause the at least one processor to:
determine a base game outcome in a base game window (Col. 3:30-40 discloses base game spin determination);
control the display device to present the base game outcome in the base game window by animating a plurality of metamorphic graphical elements (figs. 4, 7-8 depicts symbols for the base game, Col. 6:53 – Col. 7:45 discloses symbol displays presented during base game play/outcome);
in response to the base game outcome, determine whether a trigger condition exists (Col. 2:19-21 discloses the bonus game is triggered in response to start-bonus symbols from the respective stopped reels appearing in the spinning reel display; Col. 5:12-20 discloses in the base game when three bonus symbol appears, a bonus game is initiated);
in response to determining that the trigger condition exists, select a plurality of reel strips for a bonus reel, wherein each of the plurality of reel strips include one or more credit symbols spin (fig. 3, Col. 4:41-45, 7:1-30 discloses bonus reel strips with WinStreak bonus symbols and credit-payout symbols), and wherein the plurality of metamorphic graphical elements are animated based on the outcome of the bonus reel spin (Col. 7:15-62 discloses the bonus game indicated on FIG. 7 beginning at the circle labeled 2. At Step 118 the bonus game multiplier is set equal to one. The program then checks, at Step 120, to determine if the three WinStreak symbols are on the pay line; The program next goes through the process of providing an animation of spinning reels on the dot matrix display and, as the reels appear to stop, the selected symbols appear (Step 134));
control the display device to present the outcome of the bonus reel spin (Col. 7:15-62 discloses before commencing the next cycle, however, it is determined at Step 138 if the player has won or lost. If the player has won, the accumulated winnings are displayed to the player at Step 140 and the next cycle of the bonus round commences by branching back to FIG. 7 beginning at the circle labeled 3).
However, Frohm does not explicitly disclose:
determine an outcome of the bonus reel spin using a first weight table;
select a second weight table based on a combination of credit symbols from the plurality of reel strips that are in the outcome of the bonus reel spin;
determine, using the second weight table, if one or more free games features should be triggered, wherein a determination of whether one or more free games features should be triggered is made based on a single random number generator outcome that takes into account a presence of two or more different types of credit symbols in the outcome of the bonus reel spin; and
in response to determining that one or more free games features should be triggered, control the display device to trigger the one or more free games features.
In a related invention, Demar discloses a gaming machine with a bonus mode. Demar discloses determine an outcome of the bonus reel spin using a first weight table (¶¶ [0003], [0021] discloses for use with the present invention such as a reel spinning slot machine in which the basic game uses a first set of symbol probabilities and the bonus game uses a second set of symbol probabilities … the base game and bonus game could be executed on the reels of a spinning reel slot machine where the symbols on the reels are given two different sets of probabilities for the base and bonus games);
select a second weight table based on a combination of credit symbols from the plurality of reel strips that are in the outcome of the bonus reel spin (¶¶ [0003], [0021] discloses for use with the present invention such as a reel spinning slot machine in which the basic game uses a first set of symbol probabilities and the bonus game uses a second set of symbol probabilities … the base game and bonus game could be executed on the reels of a spinning reel slot machine where the symbols on the reels are given two different sets of probabilities for the base and bonus games).
Frohm discloses a slot machine comprises a spinning reel display and a bonus game and that a bonus game has different expected values based on different arrangements of the start-bonus symbols in the spinning reel display. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Demar with the gaming system of Frohm as both references are from the same analogous art and thus incorporating a first and second weight table would yield no more than predictable results: a slot machine with two pay tables
As combined, Frohm and Demar in combination does not explicitly disclose:
determine, using the second weight table, if one or more free games features should be triggered, wherein a determination of whether one or more free games features should be triggered is made based on a single random number generator outcome that takes into account a presence of two or more different types of credit symbols in the outcome of the bonus reel spin; and
in response to determining that one or more free games features should be triggered, control the display device to trigger the one or more free games features.
In a related invention, Prabhu discloses an electronic gaming machine comprising a display for displaying a game. The game comprises game symbols and predetermined winning combinations of randomly selected game symbols award prizes to a player. Prabhu discloses:
determine, using the second weight table, if one or more free games features should be triggered, wherein a determination of whether one or more free games features should be triggered is made based on a single random number generator outcome that takes into account a presence of two or more different types of credit symbols in the outcome of the bonus reel spin (see Claim 1, and Col. 9:38-43, Col. 2:15 – Col. 3:16 discloses in response to a trigger event, a single prize value used for all bonus prize symbols of a plurality of bonus prize symbols displayed on said display is randomly determined and said player is awarded a bonus prize based on said prize value and the number of said bonus prize symbols that are displayed in said game) (this reads on the single random number generator outcome that takes into account a presence of two or more different types of credit symbols); and
in response to determining that one or more free games features should be triggered, control the display device to trigger the one or more free games features (Col. 9:38-43, Col. 2:15 – Col. 3:16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Frohm/Demar with the free game features of Prabhu in order to improve and retain player interest for the player to continue playing the same electronic gaming machine once the player becomes familiar with the feature game.
Regarding Claim 2, and similarly recited Claims 9 and 16, (Original) Frohm in view of Demar and Prabhu discloses the electronic gaming device of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more credit symbols is assigned a color and a prize value, wherein the color corresponds to at least one metamorphic graphical element (Frohm, figs. 1-4).
Regarding Claim 4, and similarly recited Claims 11 and 18, (Currently Amended) Frohm in view of Demar and Prabhu discloses the electronic gaming device of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of metamorphic graphical elements corresponds to one of the one or more free games features (Demar, Col. 2:35 – Col. 3:45).
Regarding Claim 5, and similarly recited Claims 12 and 19, (Original) Frohm in view of Demar and Prabhu discloses the electronic gaming device of claim 1, wherein the one or more free games features include an expand feature, a jackpot feature, a repeat feature, or a combination thereof (Demar, Col. 2:35 – Col. 3:45).
Regarding Claim 6, and similarly recited Claim 13, (Original) Frohm in view of Demar and Prabhu discloses the electronic gaming device of claim 1, wherein the outcome of the bonus reel spin is determined using a random number generator outcome (Frohm, Col. 6:53-60).
Regarding Claim 7, and similarly recited Claims 14 and 20, (Currently Amended) Frohm in view of Demar and Prabhu discloses the electronic gaming device of claim 1, wherein the determination of whether one or more free games features should be triggered has a different probability than if trigger probabilities of each of the two or more different types of credit symbols in the outcome of the bonus reel spin were evaluated independently (Demar, ¶¶ [0003], [0021] discloses for use with the present invention such as a reel spinning slot machine in which the basic game uses a first set of symbol probabilities and the bonus game uses a second set of symbol probabilities … the base game and bonus game could be executed on the reels of a spinning reel slot machine where the symbols on the reels are given two different sets of probabilities for the base and bonus games).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pages 8-12 of the Remarks, that (i) the claim limitation of “select a second weight table based on a combination of credit symbols from the plurality of reel strips that are in the outcome of the bonus reel spin” results in an improvement to the gaming device’s processor and random number generation capabilities, and (ii) the further added language “wherein a determination of whether one or more free games features should be triggered is made based on a single random number generator outcome that takes into account a presence of two or more different types of credit symbols in the outcome of the bonus reel spin” reduces the number of RNG calls that need to be made per bonus reel spin (thereby improving efficiency)-while still providing the desired control and volatility in the game with respect to two or more different types of free game features. Applicant cites the specification paragraphs [0019] and [0078] in support of these limitations. The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons.
The improvement asserted by Applicant is directed to how game features are awarded (i.e. game probabilities) more so than a technical computing function/capability. Animating graphical elements and controlling the display to present game results are generic display/output operations. The recitation of “….and wherein the plurality of metamorphic graphical elements are animated based on the outcome of the bonus reel spin” describes a visual/display element in which appearances change but does not any technical mechanism or improvement. Generic display of abstract-idea results is insignificant post-solution activity. See Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262–64 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Applicant’s own specification example of paragraph [0019] and explanation characterizes the improvement as providing “control over the probability of awarding all three game feature mechanics together …” This is not an improvement to the electronic gaming machine, processor, memory, display, or random number generator itself. The usage of a single RNG changes the probability model used to determine which game features are awarded, more so in a faster way but does not necessarily disclose an improvement to the RNG. The processor performs the same fundamental operations (consult a table; compare random number to thresholds in the table). The RNG hardware is unchanged. The memory hardware is unchanged. The display is unchanged. What has changed is the probability model encoded in the table — i.e., the abstract mathematical structure used to govern game outcomes.
The Federal Circuit has been clear that to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application via a "technical improvement," the claim must reflect an improvement to how the underlying technology operates — not merely an improvement in the abstract activity that the technology is performing. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335–36 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility-conferring improvement was to how data is structured and stored in the computer). Here, the claim does not recite (i) any improvement to the random-number-generation hardware or algorithm; (ii) any improvement to the memory architecture, the processor, or the display rendering hardware; or (iii) any specific cooperation between gaming-machine hardware components beyond conventional data flow. The asserted "improvement" is to the game design — specifically, the ability to set a particular probability — not to the gaming machine’s technical operation.
Even to the extent that Applicant’s argument as stated in ¶ [0019] that the technology is "technically rooted in electronic gaming technology that generates a game outcome" to implicitly invokes McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), or Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), neither case supports eligibility here. McRO involved specific automation rules (specific morph-weight calculation tied to phoneme transitions) that produced lip-sync animations that could not previously be automated; the claims recited the specific rules. Enfish involved a specific data-structure innovation (self-referential database table). Here, the claim recites only generic "weight tables" and a "single random number generator outcome" — not specific rules. a generic weight table whose payload happens to encode a joint distribution is not an analogous structural innovation — it is the most basic key-value lookup table.
For the reasons above, the § 101 rejection of claims 1–2, 4–9, 11–16, and 18–20 is maintained.
Upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is set forth below.
Conclusion
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are examined above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUNA-KAY HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/S.N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights