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 02/12/2026.
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 process without significantly more. As per step 1 examiner recognizes the claims are directed towards a gaming device or a method performed by a gaming device. As per step 2A the claim(s) recite(s) “cause the one or more processors to undertake gameplay of a game, wherein an instance of gameplay of the game includes determining a game state defining a display of a selection of symbols based on one or more random outcomes generated by a random number generator, wherein each symbol is displayed in a corresponding window in a pattern of windows, wherein the pattern is bounded by opposing first sides and opposing second sides; cause, for at least one instance of gameplay, the one or more processors to: identify, for that instance of gameplay, at least one feature symbol window in which the symbol displayed therein is a feature symbol for a feature symbol window perform a predefined window selection rule including: determine that the feature symbol window is adjacent to one of the first sides of the pattern of windows, identify at least one wrap-around window adjacent to the other of the first sides of the pattern of windows, and define a set of windows corresponding to the feature symbol window, the corresponding set of windows including the at least one wrap-around window, modify at least one status of at least one window in the corresponding set of windows, and cause the one or more displays to present, for that instance of gameplay, a visual depiction of the game state including the at least one modified status of the at least one window in the corresponding set of windows, and cause, for further instances of gameplay, the at least one modified status of the at least one window in the corresponding set of windows to persist for further selections of symbols based on further random outcomes generated by the random number generator.” teaches a slot game comprising rules for determining when to display a modified window status for a symbol position based on a outcome including a feature symbol with an additional rules concerning wrap-arounds based on window status. Further dependent claims clarify what the modified applied includes and how the wrap-around rule is applied. As per the mental step examiner recognizes that the claims are directed towards a series of game rules comprising observing a state of a game, such as symbol outcomes, and applying a corresponding rule. Specifically observing the state of the game to determine where a feature symbol occurs and applying a modified status window is a mental step that an observer can perform by observing a current state of the game and applying the known rules. This includes determining when to apply a modifier and when to apply a wraparound rule. See highlighted sections. The actual act of modifying the display is addressed in step 2B. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it remains directed towards game rules which can be performed mentally. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims remain directed towards performing a mental step based on a displayed outcome. 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 “gaming device comprising: one or more displays; one or more processors; and one or more memories, wherein the one or more memories store computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors: cause the one or more processors to undertake gameplay of a game, wherein an instance of gameplay of the game comprises determining a game state defining a display of a selection of symbols, wherein each symbol is displayed in a corresponding window in a pattern of windows, wherein the pattern is bounded by opposing first sides and opposing second sides;”, “cause the one or more displays to present, for that instance of gameplay, a visual depiction of the game state, including at least one modified status for each window having one or more active modified statuses applied thereto”, 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 visually indicating a modified status for a symbol position window or reel 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 wrap-around modifier status or other status indictors on a symbol position since these are display steps related to the outcome or communicating the state of the game. Therefore the hardware and animation features do not provide a practical application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues against the previous 101 rejection with focus a technical improvement due to the unique why to control a processor to perform a window selection rule. Applicant cite to paragraphs [0038] and [0080] for support for the improvement with paragraph [0038] discussing increased equity and volatility as well as increasing player excitement and anticipation. The action of increasing volatility, equity, or other modifications to payouts is a rule for how to carry out a game and not a technical improvement that provides a practical application. Similar in the manner of modifying poker rules to add an extra card to make a poker hand would result in modify features of a payout but still remain a game rule this argued improvement reads on a rule for the game on how to play the game. Modifying payouts in the manner argued are mental steps that are directed towards how to operate and play a game and therefore do not provide a practical application. As per improvements that go to the state of a player’s mind these are both subjective and recognized as the underlying purpose of gaming since a game is intended to be both enjoyable and encourage play. Therefore the improvement is not to the technology of gaming but is the conventional purpose of gaming and therefore is not enough to overcoming step 2A. Applicant further argues that the persistence feature of the windows provides a technical improvement directed towards reducing processing resources by not requiring additional new determinations since the status is carried from one game round to another. Examiner notes that this is not directed towards improving the function of the game but instead is a rule for how the game is played. Maintaining a state from one play to the next is how the game functions and therefore the reduction in random number generation is not a feature since additional functions are already added by having the window status in the first place. A machine would not see an improvement carrying out the current game but instead additional processing would be required, compared to a traditional slot game, to handle the additional game rules for the windows as well as additional determination for adjacency rules. These are all extra processing tasks beyond the normal outputting of symbols and payline determinations. Therefore the persistence feature, when considered with the other aspects of the invention, does not meet the requirements of a technical improvement to the function of the machine.
Conclusion
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 6/11/2026
Prosecution Insights