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 Amendment filed on 1/12/2026 and is a response to said Amendment.
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 gaming system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
communicate first data that results in a display, by a display device, of a plurality of directional symbol display positions spaced apart from a plurality of award display positions,
communicate second data that results in a display, by the display device, of a quantity of directional symbols at a quantity of the plurality of directional symbol display positions, and
responsive to at least two directional symbols defining at least two paths that intersect at an award display position of the plurality of award display positions, associate an award with that award display position.
Claim 10 recites:A gaming system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor in association with a triggered sequence, cause the processor to:
communicate first data that results in a display, by a display device, of a plurality of directional symbol display positions spaced apart from a plurality of award display positions,
responsive to a first random determination, communicate second data that results in a display, by the display device, of a first directional symbol at a first directional symbol display position of the plurality of directional symbol display positions,
responsive to a second, subsequent random determination, communicate third data that results in a display, by the display device, of a second directional symbol at a second directional symbol display position of the plurality of directional symbol display positions, and
responsive to a first award display position of the award display positions being part of a first path defined by the first directional symbol at the first directional symbol display position and being part of a second, different path defined by the second directional symbol at the second directional symbol display position, associate a first award with the first award display position.Claim 17 recites:A gaming system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
communicate first data that results in a display, by a display device, of a plurality of directional symbol display positions spaced apart from a plurality of award display positions,
communicate second data that results in a display, by the display device, of a quantity of directional symbols at a quantity of the plurality of directional symbol display positions,
responsive to a first quantity of at least two directional symbols defining a first quantity of at least two paths that intersect at an award display position of the plurality of award display positions, associate a first award with that award display position, and
responsive to a second, greater quantity of at least three directional symbols defining a second, greater quantity of at least three paths that intersect at the award display position of the plurality of award display positions, associate a second, greater award with that award display position.
[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: displaying a plurality of directional symbol display positions in which responsive to at least two directional symbols defining at least two paths that intersect at an award display position of the plurality of award display positions, associating an award with at a award display position.)
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, 10, and 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: processor, memory device, and display device.
The Examiner finds that there are concepts regarding the application that simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality. For example:
Rehill et al., US 10726678 discloses that it is well known to one of ordinary skill in the graphical user interfaces are arranged to display information regarding a program, software application or other element associated with a computing device (Col 22, lines 44-47); Fujimaki et al., US 20140114890 discloses that it is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art that a computer includes an input device, a central processing unit (CPU), a storage device (for example, a RAM) for storing data, a program memory (for example, a ROM) for storing a program, and an output device (paragraph 50); Wilson, US 20070099695 discloses that slot machines are popular in casinos and other gaming establishments and that a typical slot machine has a number of (physical or animated) reels which spin during play and stop to display a pattern of symbols on one or more payout lines. Certain symbol patterns are "winners" resulting in a payout to the player (paragraph 2); Nguyen et al., US 20040172508 discloses that it is well known, a computer stores data in memory (paragraph 1); Henderson et al., US 6378042 discloses that memory can be used for temporarily storing data in which each stored piece of data may be accessed independently of any other piece of data and the data in a RAM is stored at a particular location called an address (Col 1, lines 52-65);
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);
Thomas, US 20160358424, discloses that reel-based games utilize symbols for display on an array for generating outcomes are well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 4);
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);
Walker et al., US 20080039190 discloses that graphical user interfaces, including graphical buttons provided via touch screens, menus, etc., are well known in the art (paragraph 101);
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);
Hardy et al., US 20080146346, discloses that a random number generator (RNG) is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art determining outcomes of game play when playing a game (paragraph 186);
Tempest et al., US 20050056995, discloses that technology that is well-known in the art, include a random number generator for determining an outcome of a game (paragraph 21);
Michaelson et al., US 20040166922, discloses that procedures for generating random numbers from a given random number seed and utilizing the generated random numbers to determine a game outcome are well known in the art (paragraph 68);
Demar et al., US 20010009865, discloses that it is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art that a random number generator algorithm can be used to choose symbols for display on a reel-based wagering game (paragraph 38).
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 2-9, 11-16, 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 1/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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 pertains to “the static nature of paylines evaluating random symbols generated along such paylines. That is, a technical problem exists in the limited ways which reels have been employed in association with a matrix of symbol display positions with paylines running through the matrix” and states “In solving these technical limitations and as described in the present application, the gaming systems operates by employing both award display positions and directional symbol display positions. Such a unique interface in which reels are only associated with certain positions of a matrix but awards may be displayed in association with certain other, non-reel associated positions of the matrix overcomes the technical problems incurred with reels being associated with each position of a matrix. In other words, the employment of directional symbols displayed at certain symbol display positions provides that the display that occurs at one position affects what the gaming system displays at another position of the matrix. As such and unlike certain prior gaming systems that determine awards based on symbols displayed by reels at symbol display positions, the technical configuration of determining awards not only based on the display of certain symbols at certain positions, but further based on any paths defined by such symbols and any intersections formed from multiple defined paths provides an operational change of the gaming system (relative to prior gaming systems) that introduces a unique interface while further altering the volatility of the gaming system (relative to prior gaming systems).” (page 9)
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715