DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response on 2/12/2026 has been received and fully considered. In the response, claim 1 has been amended. Therefore, claims 1-9 are pending.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
2019 PEG Analysis
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a statutory category (e.g., a process, machine, etc.)
Claims 1-9 are directed to an apparatus.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea. The following specific limitations in the claims under examination recite an abstract idea:
Determine 21 symbols (claims 1 and 4)
Determine a first, second, and third outcome (claims 1, 5, and 9)
Cause a reward points redeemable at a casino to be provided to a player based on at least one outcome (claim 1)
Tracking the player’s activities (claim 1
Three symbols are selected from 74 or 76 symbols comprising (at least two of) each of 37 or 38 symbols (claim1)
Each of the three symbols of each column is mutually exclusive with an other of the three symbols of each column (claim 1).
The above listed identified limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG:
Mental Processes: concepts preformed in the human mind (including on observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions or relationships of interaction between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.
Determining 21 symbols is a rule or instruction for playing a game. Determining a first, second and third outcome is also an instruction for playing a game. Additionally, causing reward points to be redeemable at a casino based on an outcome is also a rule or instruction for playing a game. The determining steps and the causing step are methods of organizing human activity (e.g., following rules or instructions). Tracking the player’s activities is an observation or evaluation that can be performed by a mental process. Requiring 74 or 76 symbols by doubling 37 or 38 symbols is a game rule. Requiring mutually exclusive symbols is a game rule.
Step 2A (Prong 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Overall, the following additional claim limitations appear to merely implement the abstract idea, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, or generally link the judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use, as outlined below:
Displaying symbols in a grid pattern (claims 1, 7, and 8, insignificant extra-solution activity)
Receiving streaming video (claim, insignificant extra-solution activity)
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
With regard to claim 1, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The above listed additional claim limitations provide online game play via a remote server, display, and output reward points in a well-understood, routine, and conventional way. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0037149 to Hess discloses that it is conventional to user client-server architecture for online gaming. Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible under 101. In order to satisfy the Berkheimer factual determination requirement, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0009278 to Vancura is cited for disclosing that a processor and memory are conventional in the gaming art (e.g., see at least paragraph 94). See also U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0172792 to Vancura for disclosing a conventional gaming display that show game images at certain game locations (e.g., see at least Fig. 1 and paragraph 30).
Prior Art
If Applicant is able to overcome the 101 rejections as set forth above, claims 1-9 would be allowed over the prior art. As discussed in the most recent Office Action dated 11/14/2025, the prior art fails to disclose the specific number and combination of symbols as claimed.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0113743 to Dunaevsky discusses in paragraph 4 that virtual reels allows for any number of symbols on a reel, but is silent regarding 74 symbols comprising at two each of 37 symbols.
U.S. Patent No. 7,179,166 to Abbott discusses in paragraph 14 that “a reel has a random ordering of 100 symbols”, but fails to disclose 74 symbols comprising at two each of 37 symbols.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 4, Applicant asserts that claim 9 has been amended or addressed the Examiner’s concerns to overcome the previous 112 rejections. The Examiner has withdrawn the previous 112 rejections.
Beginning on page 5 (continue on page 6), Applicant agues that the claims integrate the Examiner’s noted abstract ides are integrated into a practical application. It appears that Applicant argues that allowing a symbol to appear on multiple paylines integrates the game rules into a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s note about allowing a symbol to appear on multiple paylines appears to merely be a game rule that does not help integrate the abstract idea (game rules) into a practical application. Applicant’s 101 arguments are not persuasive. Claims 1-9 remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
As previously noted on page 8 of the most recent Office Action (11/14/2025), the Examiner again invites Applicant to conduct an examiner interview to discuss potential options for overcoming the 101 rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES S MCCLELLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (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, 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.
/James S. McClellan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights