CTNF 18/507,412 CTNF 96624 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-42-04 AIA 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/07/26 has been entered. Response to Arguments The previous objections to the claims have been withdrawn and/or are moot in light of the amendments to the claims, filed 04/07/26. However, new claim objections have been presented in light of the amendments, as discussed in detail below. The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been withdrawn in part in light of the amendments to the claims, filed 04/07/26. The rejection of claims 2-3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) has been maintained, as presented in detail below. Moreover, additional rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been presented in light of the amendments to the claims, as discussed in detail below. The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been maintained, as presented in detail below. Moreover, additional rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been presented in light of the amendments to the claims, as discussed in detail below. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to recite specific components of a particular gaming system, and thus integrates the judicial exception into a practical application ( see Remarks, filed 04/07/26, pp. 10-13). Examiner respectfully disagrees because the features are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art of wager gaming and/or because they constitute extra-solution activity. According to MPEP 2106.05(b), when determining whether additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity, examiners may consider 1) whether the extra-solution limitation is well known, 2) whether the limitation is significant (i.e., imposes meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention, and/or 3) whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting. As discussed in the rejection below, the housing, access door, security monitoring circuit, display device, input devices, processor, and trusted memory device are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. Those of ordinary skill understand that gaming regulations typically require such features before the devices can even be certified for use in casinos. Thus, this meets the first indicator for extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the Specification does not demonstrate that such limitations are “significant” as per MPEP 2106.05(b), as discussed in detail below (citing the Specification, which admits that the wagering game may be carried out on generic computers as well as casino wagering devices). Therefore, under the second indicator for extra-solution activity, these limitations do not pose any meaningful limits on the claims. Instead, they merely provide features that are nominally or tangentially related to the invention, and at most provide a technological environment in which to use the abstract idea. Finally, in accordance with the third indicator, the monitoring the access door to determine when the access door is opened is akin to mere data gathering. It further appears that Applicant argues that the claims recite an improvement in computer technology comprising providing substantial amounts of information in a relatively small space and which can be quickly and easily understood by a player through the claimed invention of a gaming system that generates and displays the reels, polarity indicators, polarities, magnetized symbols, indications of attraction, indications of repulsion, movements of the magnetized symbols, and changes of the symbols on the reels to multiplier symbols or wild symbols (Remarks, filed 04/07/26, p. 13). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention does not provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field. As stated in the Specification, [0013], “the present disclosure relates to gaming systems and methods that provide polarity attraction and repulsion of magnetized symbols on symbol displays for plays of a game.” The Specification admits that the system may be implemented using “a variety of different gaming systems” including “one or more personal gaming devices”, such as desktop computers, laptop computers, tablet computers or computing devices, personal digital assistants, mobile phones, and other mobile computing devices that offer plays of games such as wagering games (Specification, [0038]; [0087-0088]). There is no indication in the Specification of an improvement to a computer/gaming system, or to any other technology or technical field, as argued (See MPEP 2106.05(a)). As noted above, the claimed invention recites features that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art of wager gaming and/or constitute extra-solution activity. Therefore, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained, as presented in detail below. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1, 8, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: “a plurality of output devices comprising a display device” recited in claim 1, ln. 6, claim 8, ln. 6, and claim 16, ln. 6 should likely read “a plurality of output devices comprising at least a display device”; “a movement of first magnetized symbol” recited in claim 8, ln. 44 should likely read “a movement of the first magnetized symbol”; “a movement of second magnetized symbol” recited in claim 8, ln. 52 should likely read “a movement of the second magnetized symbol”; and “cause a display, by the display device, of for each of the polarity indicators, the polarity indicator is associated with one of the reels” recited in claim 16, ln. 20-21 should likely read “cause a display, by the display device, of [[for ]]each of the polarity indicators , the polarity indicator is associated with one of the reels” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA 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. 07-31-01 Claims 1-5, 8-11, and 16-19 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 claims contain 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. Claim 1 recites in part “a security monitoring circuit supported by the housing, that monitors the access door, and that causes a signal to be sent to a remote server when the access door is opened”. However, the Specification does not disclose sending a signal to a remote server when the access door is opened ( see, e.g., Specification, [0188], “Security monitoring circuits detect intrusion into an EGM by monitoring security switches attached to access doors in the EGM cabinet. Access violations result in suspension of game play and can trigger additional security operations to preserve the current state of game play. These circuits also function when power is off by use of a battery backup. In power-off operation, these circuits continue to monitor the access doors of the EGM. When power is restored, the EGM can determine whether any security violations occurred while power was off, e.g., via software for reading status registers. This can trigger event log entries and further data authentication operations by the EGM software.”). Claims 8 and 16 are rejected for the same reasoning. All dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claims 1, 8, and 16. Claim 2 recites “The gaming system of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine the quantity of the polarity indicators based on a player input.” However, the Specification does not disclose wherein the quantity of the polarity indicators is based on both a random determination and player input ( see Specification, [0015], “In various embodiments, the gaming system randomly determines the quantity of polarity indicators for each play of the game. In various embodiments, the gaming system determines the quantity of polarity indicators based directly on a player input for the play of the game. In various embodiments, the gaming system determines the quantity of polarity indicators based directly on player input in the form of one of a plurality of different wager amounts for the play of the game.”). Claim 3 is rejected for the same reasoning. Claim 8 recites in part “a change of one of the symbols on the first reel to a wild symbol displayed on the first reel due to the movement of the first magnetized symbol; and […] a change of one of the symbols on the second reel to a wild symbol displayed on the second reel due to the movement of the second magnetized symbol”, wherein the movement of the first magnetized symbol is away from the respective polarity indicator based on a repulsion between the magnetized symbol and the respective polarity indicator, and the movement of the second magnetized symbol is toward the respective polarity indicator based on an attraction between the magnetized symbol and the respective polarity indicator. However, the Specification does not disclose wherein both a movement based on an attraction and a movement based on a repulsion result in changing one of the symbols on first and second reels to a wild symbol. Rather, the Specification discloses wherein either an attraction causes a symbol on the respective reel to change to a multiplier while a repulsion causes another symbol on another respective reel to change to a wild symbol, or vice versa ( see Figs. 2A-2H; [0032]; [0058]; [0072]; [0074]; [0077]). Claims 9-11 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claim 8. 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-5, 8-11, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 1 recites the limitation " the random number generator ” in ln. 23 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-5 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claim 1. Claim 1 recites in part “a change of one of the symbols on the first reel to a multiplier symbol […] and […] a change of one of the symbols on the second reel to a wild symbol”. It is indefinite as to whether “the symbols” on the first reel and the second reel are intended to be one of the “magnetized symbols”, or rather, another symbol on the reels. Claims 8 and 16 are rejected for similar reasoning. All dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claims 1, 8, and 16. A suggested amendment is as follows (using claim 1 as an example): “a change of one of the a symbol[[s]] on the first reel to a multiplier symbol […] and […] a change of one of the a symbol[[s]] on the second reel to a wild symbol”. Claim 2 recites “The gaming system of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine the quantity of the polarity indicators based on a player input.” However, claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, recites wherein the quantity of polarity indicators is randomly determined ( see claim 1, ln. 16-17). Accordingly, it is indefinite as to how the quantity of the polarity indicators is randomly determined, and also determined based on a player input, as required by claim 2. Claims 3 and 17 are rejected for similar reasoning. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-5, 8-11, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding claim 1, analyzed as representative claim: [Step 1] Claim 1 recites “A gaming system”, which falls within the “machine” statutory category of invention. [Step 2A – Prong 1] In Step 2A – Prong 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites a judicially recognized exception. According to the Specification, “the systems and methods of the present disclose provide polarity attraction and repulsion for magnetized symbols on symbol displays in a gaming environment”, wherein “[g]aming machines may provide awards […] based on winning symbols or winning symbol combinations” (Specification, [0001-0002]; see also [0026]). Representative claim 1 recites: A gaming system comprising: a housing comprising an access door; a security monitoring circuit supported by the housing, that monitors the access door, and that causes a signal to be sent to a remote server when the access door is opened; a plurality of output devices comprising a display device supported by the housing; a plurality of input devices comprising a plurality of input buttons mounted on a deck supported by the housing and a touch screen input device supported by the housing and operable with the display device; a processor supported by the housing; and a trusted memory device supported by the housing and configured to provide a gaming regulatory authority a root trusted authority that can be tracked and verified as original, the trusted memory device storing a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: cause a display , by the display device, of reels ; randomly determine a quantity of polarity indicators, and for each said polarity indicator randomly determine a polarity of the polarity indicator selected from different polarities ; cause a display , by the display device, of the polarity indicators associated with and adjacent to the reels, each polarity indicator indicating the polarity selected from the different polarities for that polarity indicator; randomly determine, using the random number generator, magnetized symbols to display on the reels; cause a display , by the display device, of the magnetized symbols on the reels, each magnetized symbol indicating one of the different polarities; determine and cause a display , by the display device, of an indication of an attraction between one of the polarity indicators associated with a first reel of the reels and one of the magnetized symbols displayed on the first reel based on the respective polarities of said magnetized symbol and said polarity indicator, a movement of said magnetized symbol over the first reel toward said polarity indicator, and a change of one of the symbols on the first reel to a multiplier symbol displayed on the first reel due to the movement of the magnetized symbol ; and determine and cause a display , by the display device, of an indication of a repulsion between another one of the polarity indicators associated with a second reel of the reels and another one of the magnetized symbols displayed on the second reel based on the respective polarities of said magnetized symbol and said polarity indicator, a movement of said magnetized symbol over the second reel away from said polarity indicator, and a change of one of the symbols on the second reel to a wild symbol displayed on the second reel due to the movement of the magnetized symbol . The underlined portions of claim 1 generally encompass the abstract idea. It is clear that the inventive concept here is a set of rules for a game. The disclosed invention makes clear that the primary game encompasses the display of polarity indicators associated with displayed reels and magnetized symbols on the reels, in which the outcome of the game may be provided as claimed (the determination of an attraction and/or repulsion between the polarity indicators and the magnetized symbols and causing movement of the magnetized symbols and changes to symbols on the respective reels) ( see Specification, [0013], “In various embodiments, the game is a primary game such as a primary wagering game. In various embodiments, the game is a secondary game such as a secondary game triggered from a play of a primary wagering game.”; see also [0016], [0041], & [0048]). The abstract idea is a certain method of organizing human activity, wherein the claim limitations encompass a fundamental economic practice, i.e., rules for a wagering game (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Accordingly, the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite an abstract idea. [Step 2A – Prong 2] The claim does not include additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Rather, the additional elements merely provide instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, add only extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. While certain physical elements (e.g., elements that are not an abstract idea such as a gaming system comprising a housing comprising an access door, security monitoring circuit, plurality of output devices comprising a display device, plurality of input devices comprising a plurality of input buttons and a touch screen input device, processor, and trusted memory device) are present in the claim, such features do not effect an improvement in any technology or technical field and are recited in generic ways. Likewise, the abstract idea does not improve the functioning of these physical elements. Similarly, the additional element of a random number generator to randomly determine symbols (i.e., magnetized symbols) used to determine an outcome (e.g., a match of a polarity indicator to a magnetized symbol indicates a win) is recited at a high level of generality for performing its routine function, such that it does not amount to a particular machine or technical improvement thereof, nor represent an improvement in any other technology. The claim does not (i) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (ii) is not applied with any “particular machine” (only generic gaming components), (iii) does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, or (iv) is not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (e.g., a casino or other gaming establishment), such that the claim, as a whole, is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (See MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) & (e)-(h)). Therefore, the claim is directed to the abstract idea. [Step 2B] As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not further include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The random number generator is recited at a high level of generality for performing its well-understood, routine, conventional functionality such that it does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The Specification demonstrates that the random number generator is recited for its well-understood, routine, and conventional functionality, wherein the Specification refers to the random number generator in a manner that indicates that it is sufficiently well-known that it does not need to describe the particulars of such element to satisfy enablement ( see Specification, [0107], “In certain embodiments, the at least one memory device 1016 is configured to store program code and instructions executable by the at least one processor of the EGM to control the EGM. The at least one memory device 1016 of the EGM also stores other operating data, such as image data, event data, input data, random number generators (RNGs) or pseudo-RNGs, paytable data or information, and/or applicable game rules that relate to the play of one or more games on the EGM.”; [0144], “In certain embodiments, the gaming system randomly determines any game outcome(s) (such as a win outcome) and/or award(s) (such as a quantity of credits to award for the win outcome) for a play of a primary game and/or a play of a secondary game based on probability data. In certain such embodiments, this random determination is provided through utilization of an RNG, such as a true RNG or a pseudo RNG, or any other suitable randomization process.”). Additionally, the use of random number generators in gaming systems such as that claimed are well-known ( see, e.g., U.S. Pub. 2023/0316860 A1, [0004], “Typical games use a random number generator (RNG) to randomly determine the outcome of each game.” & U.S. Pub. 2018/0061186 A1, [0083], “chance-based gaming systems such as slot machines are governed by random numbers and processors, as facilitated by a random number generator (RNG). The fixed and dynamic symbols generated as part of a gaming activity may be produced using one or more RNGs. RNGs as known in the art may be implemented using hardware, software operatable in connection with the processor, or some combination of hardware and software.”). Moreover, the additional elements of a gaming system comprising: a housing comprising an access door, a security monitoring circuit supported by the housing, that monitors the access door, and that causes a signal to be sent to a remote server when the access door is opened, a plurality of output devices comprising a display device supported by the housing, a plurality of input devices comprising a plurality of input buttons mounted on a deck supported by the housing and a touch screen input device supported by the housing and operable with the display device, a processor supported by the housing, and a trusted memory device supported by the housing and configured to provide a gaming regulatory authority a root trusted authority that can be tracked and verified as original, when viewed as a whole, do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. To the extent the claimed game system is a casino-type gaming machine, such as a slot machine, the claimed features are generic, conventional, and well-known in the art of wager gaming and/or are devices and techniques that represent extra-solution activity, as explained below. For instance, U.S. 6,142,872 to Walker et al. teaches that slot machines may be embodied as “conventional hardware and software” shown in Fig. 3, including reels, a reel controller, a video display, and a random number generator. Additionally, U.S. Pub. 2008/0026854 to Chen et al. describes a “conventional gaming machine” that may include a cabinet housing that supports a display, several input devices, a current acceptor, and encloses the electrical components, such as a processor and random number generator, with a door having a lock for the cabinet to prevent unauthorized access along with doors being in communication with a controller to alert a user if the door is opened ( see, e.g., Chen, [0027]; [0031]; [0033]; [0041]). Also, U.S. Pub. 2010/0255902 to Goldstein et al. teaches a variety of security mechanisms, including tampering detection and prevention. Goldstein teaches that security monitoring circuits detect intrusion into an IGT gaming device by monitoring security switches attached to access doors in the gaming device cabinet ( see, e.g., Goldstein, [0247], where access violations result in suspension of game play and can trigger additional security operations). Finally, U.S. Pub. 2009/0203430 to Peek, teaches wherein gaming regulations require the use of trusted memory sources which have been properly verified and authenticated ( see, e.g., Peek, [95]). Further, it is noted that the Specification also demonstrates that the claimed elements are recited for their well-understood, routine, and conventional functionality, wherein the Specification refers to the elements in a manner that indicates that they are sufficiently well-known that it does not need to describe the particulars of such elements to satisfy enablement ( see Specification, [0188], “Security monitoring circuits detect intrusion into an EGM by monitoring security switches attached to access doors in the EGM cabinet.”; [0112-0113], “In various embodiments, the display devices include, without limitation: a monitor, a television display, a plasma display, a liquid crystal display (LCD), a display based on light emitting diodes (LEDs), a display based on a plurality of organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs), a display based on polymer light-emitting diodes (PLEDs), a display based on a plurality of surface-conduction electron-emitters (SEDs), a display including a projected and/or reflected image, or any other suitable electronic device or display mechanism. In certain embodiments, as described above, the display device includes a touchscreen with an associated touch-screen controller. The display devices may be of any suitable sizes, shapes, and configurations.”; [0125-0126], “In various embodiments, the at least one input device 1030 includes a plurality of buttons that are programmable by the EGM operator to, when actuated, cause the EGM to perform particular functions. For instance, such buttons may be hard keys, programmable soft keys, or icons icon displayed on a display device of the EGM (described below) that are actuatable via a touch screen of the EGM (described below) or via use of a suitable input device of the EGM (such as a mouse or a joystick). […] In certain embodiments, the at least one input device 1030 includes a touchscreen coupled to a touch-screen controller or other touch-sensitive display overlay to enable interaction with any images displayed on a display device (as described below). One such input device is a conventional touch-screen button panel.”; [0099], “The at least one processor 1010 is any suitable processing device or set of processing devices, such as a microprocessor, a microcontroller-based platform, a suitable integrated circuit, or one or more application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs)”; [0189-0190], “Trusted memory devices and/or trusted memory sources are included in an EGM to ensure the authenticity of the software that may be stored on less secure memory subsystems, such as mass storage devices. […] In at least one embodiment, at least a portion of the trusted memory devices/sources may correspond to memory that cannot easily be altered (e.g., “unalterable memory”) such as EPROMS, PROMS, Bios, Extended Bios, and/or other memory sources that are able to be configured, verified, and/or authenticated (e.g., for authenticity) in a secure and controlled manner.”). Additionally, the Specification admits that the system may be implemented using “a variety of different gaming systems” including “one or more personal gaming devices”, such as desktop computers, laptop computers, tablet computers or computing devices, personal digital assistants, mobile phones, and other mobile computing devices that offer plays of games such as wagering games (Specification, [0038]; [0087-0088]). The Specification further admits that the connection between devices “is accomplished via a conventional phone line or other data transmission line, a digital subscriber line (DSL), a T-1 line, a coaxial cable, a fiber optic cable, a wireless or wired routing device, a mobile communications network connection (such as a cellular network or mobile Internet network), or any other suitable medium.” (Specification, [0096]). As such, a generic mobile device or conventional mobile phone connected via any suitable connections medium would be capable of meeting the substantive limitations of the claim, and even this may be accomplished with other generic computer devices such as laptops and desktops. In light of these factual findings, the additional claim features are well-understood, routine, and conventional and/or constitute extra-solution activities. Taking the claimed elements individually yields no difference from taking them in combination because each element simply performs its respective function as discussed above. The claim does not purport to improve the functioning of a computer itself, nor does it affect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the additional elements merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic, functional, and conventional components well-known in the art, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible. Independent claims 8 and 16 are rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1 analyzed above. Dependent claims 2-5, 9-11, and 17-19 further define the abstract idea by introducing various rules to the game and/or relate to implementing the game. However, the claims fail to recite additional limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept). Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Pub. 2019/0318579 A1 – This reference teaches where a game award may be at least one of a change to at least one symbol displayed on the plurality of reels, addition of an award multiplier in the wagering game, and an addition of one or more wild symbols in the wagering game. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA N BIANCAMANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-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, 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. /ALYSSA N BIANCAMANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/507,412 Page 2 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/507,412 Page 3 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/507,412 Page 4 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/507,412 Page 5 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/507,412 Page 6 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/507,412 Page 7 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/507,412 Page 8 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/507,412 Page 9 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/507,412 Page 10 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/507,412 Page 11 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/507,412 Page 12 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/507,412 Page 13 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/507,412 Page 14 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/507,412 Page 15 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/507,412 Page 16 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/507,412 Page 17 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/507,412 Page 18 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/507,412 Page 19 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/507,412 Page 20 Art Unit: 3715
Prosecution Insights