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 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 1-13 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 1-13 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?):
Claims 1, and similarly Claims 12-13, recite:A gaming machine/method/non-transitory storing a program for a gaming machine providing a game to a player, the gaming machine comprising:
an operation unit configured to receive an operation of a player;
a display unit including a graphical user interface (GUI) configured to display computer- generated icons thereon, the display unit GUI including an information display area configured to display information related to game content and a symbol display area configured to display symbols selected from a plurality of symbols including credit symbols each associated with a predetermined amount of award; and
a control unit connected to the operation unit and the display unit, and including one or more processors programmed to execute an algorithm to display an animated reel game including a sequence of computer-generated icons on the display unit GUI including steps to:
animate a plurality of reels to appear within the symbol display area displaying the plurality of symbols within a grid including a plurality of cells arranged in cell matrix including a plurality of columns;
animate a multiplier value list to appear within the information display area including a plurality of multiplier values, and highlighting a current multiplier value;
animate the plurality of reels to spin and stop the symbols displayed by the display unit GUI in response to receiving the operation of the player by the operation unit, and display an award based on symbol arrangement formed by the symbols stopped within the grid;
start a bonus event upon determining the symbol arrangement includes a special symbol appearing within a first column of the cell matrix and at least one credit symbol appearing within one of a second, a third, a fourth, and a fifth column of the cell matrix;
display a bonus event award based on an amount associated with the at least one credit symbol occurred in the symbol arrangement and the current multiplier value;
accumulate a number of the credit symbols that occurred in the bonus event; and
highlight a next multiplier value displayed in the multiplier value list indicating an increase in the bonus event award to be displayed in a subsequent instance of the bonus event based on determining the number of credit symbols accumulated satisfies a rank-up condition.
[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: providing a game for accumulating a number credit symbols that occurred in a bonus event and increasing a bonus event award to be provided in subsequent game based on the number of credit symbols accumulated.)
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, 12-13 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: operation unit and display unit.
The Examiner finds that there are concepts regarding the application simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality. For example:
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);
Wilson, US 20050277457, discloses that it is readily understood that the video games are normally computer controlled, and that the game-logic electronic circuitry for implementing the method for playing such a video game in a machine is well known and available to one skilled in the art (paragraph 28);
Vancura, US 20010038178, discloses the provision of a bonus symbol on a payline is also conventional and it is well known that slot machines can have a bonus condition randomly appear which results in a player having the opportunity to play a bonus game (paragraph 61);
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);
Falciglia, SR., US 20100203948 discloses that, as is well known, the combinations of reel positions and their odds of hitting are associated with the controller, and the controller is arranged to stop the reels in a position displaying a combination of indicia as determined by the controller based on the combinations and odds (paragraph 142);
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);
Ang, US 20180130285, discloses that it is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art that the function or functions of applications can be implemented in varying ways for gaming using well-known components such as a processor and memory (paragraph 69);
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 2-11 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 2/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant provided arguments the invention is directed to a specific gaming machine and method for displaying an animated reel game, providing a list:
1) animating a plurality of reels to appear within a symbol display area; 2) animating a multiplier value list to appear within the information display area including a plurality of multiplier values, and highlighting a current multiplier value; 3) animating the plurality of reels to spin and stop the symbols to display a symbol arrangement within the grid; 4) determining whether the symbol arrangement includes a special symbol appearing within a first column of the cell matrix and a credit symbol appearing within one of a second, a third, a fourth, and a fifth column of the cell matrix, and starting a bonus event;
5) displaying a bonus event award based on the credit symbol and the current multiplier value; 6) accumulating a number of the credit symbols that occurred in the bonus event;
7) determining if the number of credit symbols accumulated satisfies a rank-up condition; 8) highlighting a next multiplier value displayed in the multiplier value list if the rank-up condition is satisfied; and argued that the recited limitations in the amended independent claims cannot be reasonably interpreted as being directed to the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as well as referencing Subject Matter Eligibility Example 37 as well as referencing MPEP 2106.04-2106.05 as arguments that the claimed invention is directed towards “significantly more” (page 8-11) and provided arguments with regard to previous US Patents issued to the applicant by the Examiner (bottom of page 11 to top of page 12)
The Examiner disagrees and believes the listing above are all directed towards are all directed towards “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)”. In this case, the gaming machine of the claimed invention is interpreted as following rules or instructions for playing a game. While “Abstract ideas, including a set of rules for a game, may be patent-eligible if they contain an "`inventive concept' sufficient to `transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294, 1298), the Examiner does not believe the claimed invention exhibit such an inventive concept but merely enacting rules pertinent for displaying a wagering game (ie: providing a game for accumulating a number credit symbols that occurred in a bonus event and increasing a bonus event award to be provided in subsequent game based on the number of credit symbols accumulated.)
Regarding the applicant’s argument that previous applications had been issued to the applicant by the same Examiner, the Examiner examines every case under its own merits. Whereas similar applications could be found eligible under MPEP guidelines, different applications may be found ineligible under those same MPEP guidelines.
Furthermore, the current application does not appear to be related to the listed patents issued. In instances where an application is within the same family of parent/child applications, the Examiner would take the arguments towards eligibility from those other cases into consideration as arguments towards eligibility.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-14, filed 2/19/2026, with respect to the prior art rejection of Claims 1-13, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claims 1-13 has been withdrawn. In this case, after a search for the amended limitations, the Examiner has determined that newly added limitation distinguishes the claimed invention of the prior art of record.
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 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/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights