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 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 10-11, and 18-19 have been amended and no new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative argues that the claims rejected under 35 USC !01 are not directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more because a) they are not directed to an abstract idea (see Remarks, pg. 9-14) and b) they are directed to “significantly more” than the abstract idea (see Remarks, pg. 14-15). The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons discussed below.
With respect to evaluation of the claims being directed to an abstract idea, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims do not recite a certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process because they are directed to computer-specific activity relating to managing randomness and random number generation through the generation, storage, and manipulation of unique data structures stored in memory (see Remarks, pg. 10-11). Specifically, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims are not directed to merely rules for playing a game but are directed to a system and method to conserve computer memory and real-time dynamic adjustments to a graphical display and managing RTP using persistent values and symbol sequences (see Remarks, pg. 10-11). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are found to recite instructions for managing a symbol game, typically the type found in casinos (see Specification, 0002-0004). The steps and/or instructions have been found to be analogous to managing randomness and volatility associated with a continuous symbol sequence and persistent symbols of the game, which is analogous to mitigating risk and hedging associated with wagering games to satisfy regulatory considerations associated with a return to player (“RTP”). Managing the dynamic display of the selected symbols on a graphical display by following rules and/or instructions for the symbol game are found to be directed to the abstract idea itself and/or insignificant extra solution activity for presenting and arranging the game for the player. As to the Applicant’s assertion that the claims recite a unique data structure to conserve computer memory and real-time dynamic adjustments and managing RTP, the Examiner does not find the general statement in the Specification that the steps directed to managing a bonus game or feature game describe how the inventor intended to solve a technical solution to a technical problem that conserves computation resources and memory usage of a conventional EGM (see Specification, 0029). In contrast, the Examiner maintains that steps and/or instructions for selecting and generating symbols for a continuous game sequence that maintains variability to satisfy an RTP is directed to steps to managing a symbol bonus or feature game that is directed to the abstract idea itself. For at least this reasons, the Applicant’s argument that the claims are not directed to rules for managing a symbol game are not persuasive. For at least this reason, the Applicant’s argument that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A-prong 1 is not persuasive.
Additionally, the Applicant’s representative maintains that the claims are similar to Example 37 of the 2019 PEG. In particular, the Applicant’s representative argues that Claim 2 of Example 37 which was directed to “determining an amount of use of an icon over a period of time and automatically moving the most used icons to a position based on the determined amount of use” which was found to not be directed to a mental process because it recited that the “determining steps” required a processor accessing computer memory indicative of application usage. The Applicant’s representative further asserts that the claims of the instant application are similar because the claims recite a processor for “generating a first plurality of symbols (e.g., first data), where those first plurality of symbols are later used by the processor to determine a plurality of persistent values to generate the continuous symbol sequence”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In contrast to the facts of Claim 2 of Example 37, the claims in the instant application do not rely upon a “determining step” similar to Example 37 with information that is indicative of memory usage. Rather, instant application recites a certain method of organizing human activity such as managing a symbol game in which the recited generation of symbols are based upon a fixed lookup table that is associated with an output from a random number generator in order to maintain randomness and variability of the selected symbols associated with regulatory considerations for managing a game of chance. It follows that the Applicant’s argument that the claims are similar to Claim 2 of Example 37 are not persuasive and the analysis has been maintained below.
Moreover, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claimed invention is directed to solving a technical problem of “involving how a gaming device is better able to control credit values that show up in a continuous sequence of credit symbols in a game feature” that facilitate increased randomness and volatility associated with persistent credit values and utilizing prior computation and randomness outputs to alter future game states (see Remarks, pg. 12-14). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Steps and/or instructions for managing a game of chance (e.g., a game that functions based upon the randomness and volatility of symbols appearing), when framed in the context of managing a continuous symbol sequence in the bonus/feature game is not found to be a technical solution to a technical problem but rather towards business considerations for managing a wagering game in accordance including rules and/or instructions to satisfy regulatory standards. This is not indicative of an integration into a practical application, but similar to Alice v. CLS, in which the claim recites a commonplace business method (e.g., continuous symbol sequence of a bonus game or feature game) by invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument that the claim 1 recites details of how the solution is accomplished that recites an improvement of conservation of computational resources and memory usage while maintaining variability of game play and RTP by using credit values is not persuasive. The claims recites steps and/or instructions for managing a feature symbols in a continuous symbol sequence of a symbol game which is found to recite at least one of steps of the abstract idea, invoking a computer as a tool, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a), MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). Although the claims have been amended to explicitly recite “display the set of feature symbols which helps to conserve computation resources of the gaming device”, the Specification does not provide sufficient detail beyond a general statement of the desired improvement but does not describe or provide detail as to how the feature symbols for presenting an outcome of the game is a technical solution that helps conserve computation resources of the gaming device. A review of the Specification appears to indicate that the contemplated improvement is the continuous sequence of credit values to provide a persistent credit which is directed to steps for managing the bonus feature symbol game but does not provide any discussion or detail as to the improvement to the reduction of reducing computational resources and memory in the electronic gaming machine (see Specification, 0107). For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument that the claims recite an improvement to the functioning of the gaming device are not persuasive as the claims are found to be directed towards the instructions for managing a continuous symbol sequence of the symbol game.
With respect to “significantly more”, the Applicant’s representative states that the claims satisfy Step 2B because there is no indication in the Office Action that the claim recitations are well-understood, routine, or conventional and there is no prior art based rejection. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Non-Final Rejection, dated 1/13/26, follows the two-part Alice framework and found that the additional elements such as: “a gaming device, “a memory”, “a processor” and selecting random events using a “random number generator” were well-known, routine, and conventional uses for managing a wagering game in a conventional electronic gaming machine (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0008, 0037-0040). For at least these reasons, 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 1-20 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, recite limitations directed to a grouping of abstract idea such as:
1. A gaming device, comprising:
a memory device storing computer-executable instructions; and
a processor, wherein execution of the instructions by the processor causes the processor to:
generate a game matrix including rows and columns of symbol positions, wherein each column of a subset of columns of the game matrix is randomly assigned a symbol value range selected from a high value range, a medium value range, and a low value range, wherein the high value range includes symbol values greater than the low value range;
identify a plurality of symbols to be displayed with the game matrix, wherein at least one of the plurality of symbols includes at least one respective value symbol, wherein the at least one respective value symbol is assigned using a random number generator (RNG)-based-lookup operation in a lookup table corresponding to the value range of the associated column of the game matrix;
cause display of the plurality of symbols as part of a base game, each symbol of the plurality of symbols displayed within a symbol position of a plurality of symbol positions within the game matrix, at least one of the plurality of symbols including at least one respective value symbol displaying a respective credit value thereon; - certain method of organizing human activity;
in response to triggering a feature game, determine a plurality of persistent values for use in the feature game based at least in part on the at least one respective value symbol displayed in the base game; -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
cause display of a plurality of credit meters in the feature game, each credit meter of the plurality of credit meters displaying one of the plurality of persistent values;
generate a continuous symbol sequence by randomly assigning a respective persistent value of the plurality of persistent values to a set of feature symbols included in the continuous symbol sequence of the feature game; -certain method of organizing human activity; and
cause display of the continuous symbol sequence during the feature game including causing display of the set of feature symbols thereby providing randomly generated persistent values of varying magnitudes as a subset of values to randomly select from for assigning to the set of feature symbols which helps to conserve computational resources of the gaming device..
The claims are found to recite a series of steps and/or instructions for managing a base game and a continuous symbol sequence of a feature game which is analogous to a certain method of organizing human activity that is a grouping of abstract idea under Step 2A-prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations such as: “cause display of a plurality of symbols as part of a base game”, “cause display of a plurality of credit meters in the feature game, each credit meter of the plurality of credit meters displaying one of the plurality of persistent values;” and “cause display of the continuous symbol sequence during the feature game including causing display of the set of feature symbols.” are found to limitations that are mere instructions to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or recite insignificant extra solution activity of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(g)). The remaining limitations such as : “a memory device storing computer-executable instructions;” and “a processor, wherein execution of the instructions by the processor causes the processor to:” are found to be analogous to mere instructions to invoke a computer as a tool and/or provides a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h)). For at least these reasons, the additional limitations of the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, are not found to integrate the claims into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements such as “a gaming device” comprising “a memory device” and “a processor” are found to be invoked merely as a tool to implement the abstract idea, 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 A1) discloses a conventional gaming device comprises a memory and a processor are well-known, routine and conventional components and/or environment to perform the abstract idea (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0008, 0037-0040). For at least these reasons, when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements the additional elements, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, are not found to amount to significantly more under Step 2B.
With respect to independent Claims 11 and 19, the claims recite substantially the same subject matter as independent Claim 1 above but differ in that they are directed to the computer-implemented method and electronic gaming application server embodiments of the claimed subject matter. The differences do not change the analysis and findings with respect to independent Claim 1 and have been incorporated herein. For at least these reasons, independent Claims 11 and 19 are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
With respect to dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-18, and 20, the dependent claims have been analyzed and were found to recite limitations directed to at least one of: a grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)), mere instructions to apply the exception (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 1-20 are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 11, and 19 recite the limitations “causing display of the continuous symbol sequence during the feature game including causing display of the set of feature symbols thereby providing randomly generated persistent values of varying magnitudes as a subset of values to randomly select from assigning to the set of features which helps to conserve computational resources of the gaming device” is not adequately described in the Specification. While the Specification discloses steps for managing a continuous symbol sequence during the feature game to vary the magnitudes to select for assigning to the set of feature symbols it is silent as to how the display of the feature symbols “helps to conserve computational resources of the gaming device”. While a review of the Specification provides a general statement to allege that “improvements over conventional EGMs include conservation of computational resources and memory usage while maintaining variability of game play and RTP by using credit values that are randomly displayed during the base game for later use and display during the feature game” there is no corresponding discussion or any discussion as to how the display of feature symbols solves a technical problem that conserves computational resources, improve memory usage, or to improvement to the random number generator that would maintain variability of game play and RTP in the recited game of chance (see Specification, 0029). For at least these reasons, the limitation “helps to conserve computational resources of the gaming device” is not adequately describe in a manner that would indicate to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to show possession of the claimed invention.
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