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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to amendments filed on 07/21/2026.
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 mental step without significantly more. As per step 1 examiner recognizes the claims are directed towards a method for operating a gaming system comprising computing hardware. As per step 2A the claim(s) recite(s) “displaying, by a display device, a random symbol at each of a random quantity of active symbol display positions associated with a plurality of reels, wherein a size of each of the plurality of reels is constant independent of the random quantity of active symbol display positions associated with that reel, and after each of the random symbols is displayed at each of the random quantity of active symbol display positions, responsive to any of the random symbols displayed at any of the active symbol display positions for a requisite number of the plurality of reels forming a string of related symbols corresponding to a designated symbol combination, displaying, by the display device, a result, wherein each formed string of related symbols includes one symbol for each reel and the requisite number of adjacent reels is at least two.” teaches a slot game comprising a random quantity of symbol positions in a matrix of symbol positions wherein the matrix is a constant size and a string of random symbols is formed in order to determine an award associated with the string. Further dependent claims include additional rules regarding the matrix and forming of strings of symbols. As per the mental steps see the steps “responsive to” and “responsively” regarding rules applied based on symbols appearing the game. This is the mental step of observing a state of a game and applying a corresponding rule which is a step that can be done mentally. For example determining what string of symbols to form and what award to provide. Further this is the basic mental step found in gaming wherein combination of symbols, such as cards, are formed together to determine an outcome in the game. Applicant’s amendment has removed language regarding gaming however examiner recognizes the rules remain wherein steps occur based on symbol outcomes which is a form of gaming. See slot games for example. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because a mental process in the form of game rules. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims are directed towards performing a mental step based on a displayed outcome in the form of game rules. Specifically observing the state of the game and applying a rule accordingly remains a mental step and no recited steps beyond conventional feature or extra solution activity are recited that cannot be performed in the mind. Specifically following rules can be performed in the mind. Additional elements are addressed below regarding the display and hardware portions.
As per step 2B examiner recognizes that additional elements are directed to conventional activities or extra solution activity. See below.
Limitation “method of operating a gaming system, the method comprising: for a play of a game: displaying, by a display device, a random symbol at each of a random quantity of active symbol display positions associated with a plurality of reels”, means to detect opening of an access door for security purposes, and other associated hardware and computer steps. The hardware elements are commonly found in the gaming art related to electronic slot machines or wagering terminals and therefore are no more than a generic recitation of computer hardware elements including network elements and therefore does not provide a practical application that amounts to more than the identified abstract idea. This includes the recitation of memory, processors, and displaying steps which are generically found in electronic gaming machine including the elements accepting wagers for the purpose of presenting an outcome and payout for the results. See US 6186894 B1 at col. 5, lines 25-38 regarding video slot reels including displaying outcomes and that the activity of spinning and producing random outcomes from a wagering game are conventional activities well-understood in the art. See Acres (US Pub. No. 2012/0172107 A1) teaches within the electronic gaming art the use of a random number generator to determine numbers for specific reel stop positions in order to determine an outcome which is evaluated if it is a winning combination of symbols appearing on a played payline (paragraph [0073]). Specifically it is conventional to communicate data to output to a user comprising animated spinning of a wager determining device (which would include reels or wheels) or static images to communicate an outcome and award due as well as the state of the game. Therefore these limitations do not provide a practical application. Further the means of displaying graphics and animations regarding a result or state of the game are conventional to the art and is directed towards extra solution activity as being a means to output information without changing the identified mental steps above. This includes the act of displaying particular animations or image regarding an outcome including variable matrix of symbol positions since these display steps are extra solution activity and directed to the outputting of data to inform a player which is conventional to the art. This would include display or animation steps regarding changing wagering tiers or symbols displayed since these are display steps related to the outcome or communicating the state of the game. Regarding security door access See Acres (US Pub. No. 2011/0111836 A1) regarding a security door with a sensor for detecting access including the use of accounting to track usage of a gaming machine (paragraphs [0003]-[0004]) which has been a practice used for a longtime. See Pettie (US Pub. No. 2019/0197828 A1) at paragraph [0053] regarding trusted memory, further access sensors, and powering requirements being unique but conventional features to gaming machine “To address some of the issues described above, a number of hardware/software components and architectures are utilized in gaming machines that are not typically found in general purpose computing devices, such as PCs, These hardware/software components and architectures, as described below in more detail, include but are not limited to watchdog timers, voltage monitoring systems, state-based software architecture and supporting hardware, specialized communication interfaces, security monitoring and trusted memory.”, “Gaming computer platforms preferably use several power supply voltages to operate portions of the computer circuitry. These can be generated in a central power supply or locally on the computer board.”, “Security monitoring circuits detect intrusion into a gaming machine by monitoring security switches attached to access doors in the slot machine cabinet. Preferably, access violations result in suspension of game play and can trigger additional security operations to preserve the current state of game play.”, and “Trusted memory devices are preferably included in a gaming machine computer to ensure the authenticity of the software that may be stored on less secure memory subsystems, such as mass storage devices. Trusted memory devices and controlling circuitry are typically designed to not allow modification of the code and data stored in the memory device while the memory device is installed in the slot machine.“. Therefore the hardware and animation features do not provide a practical application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed07/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding financial obligation examiner does agrees that claim language removes this features however the mental step exception remains and therefore the 101 is maintained and updated. Applicant argues against the previous 101 rejection regarding the amendments no longer reciting the mental step exceptions. Applicant argues the machine elements, such as randomness and GUI, cannot be performed in the mind. However this is address in step 2B as being conventional to games and therefore the mental step portion, which is the identified response steps, still remains and is not overcome under step 2B. Specifically the claims recite game rules on how a game is to be carried out which is a mental step. The machine elements are further directed towards conventional features as identified in step 2B and therefore the machine elements do not add significantly more to the recited mental steps to overcome the identified exception. Therefore the 101 is maintained.
Applicant further the symbol matrix size being random independent of other factors as an improvement. It is not clear what the improvement would be beyond implementation of game rules. Examiner requests clarification if the function of the machine is modified.
As per new claims see updated step 2B showing the machine elements recited, such as security elements, are conventional to gaming machines and therefore the claims do not overcome the 101 rejection.
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 JUSTIN L MYHR whose telephone number is (571)270-7847. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM.
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.
/JUSTIN L MYHR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 8/7/2026
Prosecution Insights