Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/590,544

ELECTRONIC GAME FOR RECREATING OUTCOMES USING DIFFERENT FEATURES

Non-Final OA §101
Filed
Feb 28, 2024
Examiner
IANNUZZI, PETER J
Art Unit
3715
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Aristocrat Technologies, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
343 granted / 509 resolved
-2.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+14.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
548
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
16.2%
-23.8% vs TC avg
§103
30.8%
-9.2% vs TC avg
§102
27.6%
-12.4% vs TC avg
§112
18.9%
-21.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 509 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
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 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 judicial exception. The claims will be analyzed with respect to the Subject Matter Eligibility Test at MPEP§2106. Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 1 (see MPEP§2106.03) The claims recite one of the four statutory categories of subject matter. Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 2A Prong 1 (see MPEP§2106.04(a-c)) The claims recite abstract ideas in the following categories; Methods of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) see specifically ii. rules for conducting a wagering game, In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016); (MPEP§2106.04(a)(2)II) (hereinafter “MOHA”). The abstract ideas have been noted in the claims below. Regarding claim 1, an electronic game that includes a base game mode and a feature game mode (MOHA – rules of a wagering game regarding different game modes): generate an output in response to a player input at a gaming device (MOHA – rules of a wagering game regarding game inputs and outputs); evaluate the output to determine an award value (MOHA – rules of a wagering game regarding award determinations/amounts); select, based on the award value, a presentation record of the electronic game from a plurality of presentation records stored in the memory (MOHA – rules of a wagering game regarding award determinations/amounts) wherein the plurality of presentation records includes: a first presentation record set including presentation records each including an outcome of the base game mode without a feature (MOHA – rules of a wagering game regarding award determinations/amounts); a second presentation record set including presentation records each including a feature of the base game mode (MOHA – rules of a wagering game regarding award determinations/amounts); and a third presentation record set including presentation records each including a feature of the feature game mode (MOHA – rules of a wagering game regarding award determinations/amounts); wherein the first presentation record set is associated with a first range of award values, the second presentation record set is associated with a second range of award values different from the first range, and the third presentation record set is associated with a third range of award values different from the first range and the second range (MOHA – rules of a wagering game regarding award determinations/amounts). Regarding claim 2, the electronic gaming system of claim 1, wherein the output is a bingo game outcome (MOHA – rules of a wagering game regarding the type of game). Regarding claim 3, the electronic gaming system of claim 1, wherein the feature of the feature game mode comprises a first feature, the first feature being a hold-and-spin game that includes first and second play areas (MOHA – rules of a wagering game regarding game elements), wherein, when the selected presentation record is from the third presentation record set (MOHA – rules of a wagering game regarding award determinations/amounts) show a visual indication that the hold-and-spin feature game is triggered (MOHA – rules of a wagering game regarding information to be shown to a player); initiate play of the hold-and-spin game by populating a first type of feature symbol in the first play area and a second type of feature symbol in the second play area, each of the populated feature symbols associated with an award value (MOHA – rules of a wagering game regarding information to be shown to a player); and show of one or more spins of the hold-and-spin game, wherein, when a feature symbol of the first type appears in the second play area, the first play area is populated with an additional feature symbol of the first type and the feature symbol of the first type in the second play area is converted to the second type (MOHA – rules of a wagering game regarding information to be shown to a player). Regarding claim 4, the electronic gaming system of claim 3, wherein, when the feature symbol of the first type appears in the second play area, the first play area is populated with the additional feature symbol of the first type in a corresponding symbol position as the feature symbol of the first type appearing in the second play area (MOHA – rules of a wagering game regarding information to be shown to a player). Regarding claim 5, the electronic gaming system of claim 4, wherein, when the corresponding symbol position is already populated with an existing feature symbol, the award value of the existing feature symbol is increased by the award value of the feature symbol of the first type appearing in the second play area (MOHA – rules of a wagering game regarding information to be shown to a player). Regarding claim 6, the electronic gaming system of claim 3, wherein the visual indication that the hold-and-spin feature game is triggered is a triggering number of bonus tokens collected (MOHA – rules of a wagering game regarding information to be shown to a player). Regarding claim 7, the electronic gaming system of claim 3, wherein the feature of the feature game mode comprises a second feature, the second feature being a pick bonus game (MOHA – rules of a wagering game regarding gameplay continuation). Claims 8-10 recited the abstract ideas of claims 1-7 mutatis mutandis. Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 2A Prong 2 (see MPEP§2106.04(d)) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a memory, processor, display, other generic computer hardware; insignificant extra solution activity such as collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data; and the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer. These additional elements individually and in combination provide for limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These additional elements (1) add “insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g)” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) and (2) generally link “the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I). These additional elements individually and in combination are not limitations that provide for “improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) apply or use the “judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) implement the “judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) effect “a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) or apply or use “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, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I). As such the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 2B (see MPEP§2106.05) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional generic computer hardware and insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP§2106.05). The claimed additional elements with citations indicating their well-understood, routine and conventional nature are provided below. See US 2008/0254854 at para. 24 for the use of a display. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER J IANNUZZI whose telephone number is (571)272-5793. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-5:30PM EST. 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. /PETER J IANNUZZI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 28, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12592126
SYSTEMS AND METHODS OF ELECTRONIC GAMING INCLUDING GESTURE-BASED PLAYER CONSTRUCTED SYMBOL COMBINATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589304
METHOD AND AR GLASSES FOR AR GLASSES INTERACTIVE DISPLAY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589311
PERFORMANCE PREDICTION FOR VIRTUALIZED GAMING APPLICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589290
FUNCTION BUTTON MODULE WITH VARIABLE FUNCTION LAYOUT AND GAME CONTROLLER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586442
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR IMPLEMENTING SINGLE ACCOUNT AND SINGLE WALLET FOR DISTRIBUTED GAMING SYSTEM ACROSS JURISDICTIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+14.6%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 509 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month