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 abstract ideas without significantly more. Although the claims, which describe random reel set game outcome selection and displaying, have been drafted so as to avoid using terms such as “wagering” or explicitly reciting financial accounting practices, Applicant's specification confines the field of the claimed invention to regulated casino EGM devices that monitor credit balances and issue monetary payouts based on the claimed operations. The claims interpreted in light of the specification as per a broadest reasonable interpretation thus encompass “Certain methods of organizing human activity” including wagering game rules that dictate payouts owed and accounting practices. There are no embodiments in the specification that enable the claimed random outcome selection and symbol displaying invention as being used in a context that does not involve casino wagering and accounting.
In support of this interpretation: See [0041] of the instant specification wherein it is described that, “...Gaming devices 104A-104X utilize specialized software and/or hardware to form non-generic, particular machines or apparatuses that comply with regulatory requirements regarding devices used for wagering or games of chance that provide monetary awards."
And in [0048], "The gaming device 104A can have hardware meters for purposes including ensuring regulatory compliance and monitoring the player credit balance. In addition, there can be additional meters that record the total amount of money wagered on the gaming device, total amount of money deposited, total amount of money withdrawn, total amount of winnings on gaming device 104A. "
See additionally [0064]-[0067], [0089], [0094] where Applicant further elaborates on how the apparatuses necessary to enable the claimed invention are “operable to award monetary awards”.
There are no technical improvements to computer hardware or software or to a technical field found in the claims. The claims are drafted as listing desired end-results of operations of generic computing devices, without any technical description of how the results are achieved, and wherein the results are used for managing the display of a casino wagering game. The claims focus on features that affect a player’s visual wagering game experience, independent of any performance improvements to computers. No practical application(s) or inventive concept(s) are found that could transform the claims into eligible subject matter.
A detailed discussion follows that is based on the guidance provided in the 2019 PEG and Oct. 2019 Update. Steps 1 and 2 of the Alice analysis have been conducted for pending claims 1-20.
Independent claim limitation summaries:
Representative Claim 1 (system):
Preamble: A system for electronic gaming.
Element [1]: At least one memory device storing:
[1a] A first group of reel sets; and
[1b] A second group of reel sets;
where each group’s reel sets include reels having single-triggering symbols each associated with a respective metamorphic feature of a plurality of metamorphic features.
Element [2]: At least one processor in communication with the memory device configured to:
[2a] Select, based on a first RNG call, one of the first group of reel sets or the second group of reel sets, the second group including more single-triggering symbols than the first group;
[2b] Select, based on a second RNG call, whether to upgrade at least one single-triggering symbol to a multi-triggering symbol;
[2c] Generate a game outcome including a plurality of symbols based on the selected group of reel sets;
[2d] Control a display device to display the generated game outcome;
[2e] If the multi-triggering symbol is displayed in the game outcome, activate each metamorphic feature of the plurality of metamorphic features; and
[2f] For each activated metamorphic feature, control the display device to display a visual outcome associated with the activated metamorphic feature.
Parallel claims:
Claim 9: Non-transitory computer-readable medium (CRM) with instructions causing the same operations as claim 1.
Claim 17: Method claim mirroring the system/CRM steps (process).
Dependent claim limitation summaries:
Claim 2: For any single-triggering symbol included in the displayed game outcome, activate a metamorphic feature associated with the single-triggering symbol.
Claim 3–4: Display and modify indicators corresponding to metamorphic features; modify all indicators when upgrades occur.
Claim 5: Probability bias for selecting the first group vs. second group (based on the first RNG call).
Claim 7–8: Metamorphic features are bonus features; visual outcomes displayed sequentially.
Step 1: In this step of the Alice analysis, it is determined that all of the pending claims fall into statutory categories. The claims meet step 1 as follows:
Claim 1: Machine (system).
Claim 9: Manufacture (non-transitory computer-readable storage media).
Claim 17: Process (method).
Each claim falls within a statutory category under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Proceed to Step 2A.
Step 2A, Prong 1: In this step of the Alice analysis, judicial exception(s) that fall into abstract idea groupings enumerated in the 2019 PEG are identified and quoted.
The claims recite judicial exceptions:
Certain methods of organizing human activity (2019 PEG, Section I(A)(2)): As discussed prior, the instant specification, in light of which the claims must be interpreted to establish BRI, solely enables the operation of the invention in a wagering context accompanied by essential casino monetary accounting practices. Wagering/game rules and prize-trigger mechanics are forms of organizing human activity (gaming and financial awards).
In re: Smith, the Federal Circuit held that, “rules for conducting a wagering game, compare to other “fundamental economic practice[s]” found abstract by the Supreme Court” because “[a] wagering game is, effectively, a method of exchanging and resolving financial obligations based on probabilities” J.A. 15.” The Federal Circuit supported this conclusion by referencing Alice, wherein “the Supreme Court held that a method of exchanging financial obligations was drawn to an abstract idea.” 134 S. Ct. at 2356–57.
In re Marco Guldenaar, 911 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (rules of a dice game abstract); Planet Bingo v. VKGS, 576 F. App’x 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (managing bingo drawings abstract).
And maintaining account balances, processing credits and debits, and determining amounts owed are all fundamental economic practices that are covered abstract ideas, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A)
Mathematical concepts (2019 PEG, Section I(A)(1)): RNG calls, probabilistic selection, and weighted determinations are mathematical operations. The claims repeatedly determine outcomes “based on” RNG calls and probabilities. While “RNG” is a domain term, the recitations boil down to mathematical selection and probability weighting.
Mental processes/information processing (2019 PEG, Section I(A)(3)): Steps such as “selecting,” “determining,” “activating,” “displaying visual outcomes” are results-oriented information processing steps that could, at a high level, be performed conceptually in the mind or by pen-and-paper but are here stated as being executed by a generic processor/display without a claimed technological improvement to the computer itself. See Electric Power Group v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (collecting, analyzing, displaying results abstract).
Limitations directed to abstract ideas (illustrative quotes):
“select, based on a first RNG call, one of the first group of reel sets or the second group of reel sets” (Claim 1 [2a]).
“select, based on a second RNG call, whether to upgrade the at least one of the single-triggering symbols to a multi-triggering symbol” (Claim 1 [2b]).
“generate a game outcome including a plurality of symbols” and “control a display device to display the generated game outcome” (Claim 1 [2c]–[2d]).
“if the multi-triggering symbol is displayed in the game outcome, activate each metamorphic feature of the plurality of metamorphic features” (Claim 1 [2e]).
“for each activated metamorphic feature, control the display device to display a visual outcome associated with the activated metamorphic feature” (Claim 1 [2f]).
CRM and method claims (Claims 9 and 17) mirror the same abstract steps via “instructions” and “determining”/“activating”/“displaying” clauses.
These quoted limitations collectively recite game rules, probabilistic symbol upgrading, feature triggering, and presentation of visual outcomes—falling squarely within abstract idea groupings without additional specificity to a technological improvement.
Step 2A, Prong 2: In this step, any additional elements beyond the identified abstract ideas are identified and evaluated for any integration into a practical application. In particular, any claimed technological improvement is considered.
Additional elements recited in the claims include:
The claims are implemented on a generic computing environment: “at least one memory device,” “at least one processor,” and a “display device.” No particular machine architecture (e.g., hardware RNG module, specialized RNG conversion engine, regulatory instrumentation, secure entropy sources, or real-time pipeline constraints) is positively recited.
Field-of-use limitation: Confining the abstract rules to “electronic gaming” or “EGMs” is a field-of-use limitation and does not, by itself, integrate the exception into a practical application (2019 PEG Step 2A Prong 2; Oct. 2019 Update).
The preceding additional elements, considered alone and in the context of the claims, do not integrate the abstract game-rule logic into a practical application that improves computer functionality or another technology.
There is no claimed improvement to computer functionality: The claims do not recite how RNG is generated or converted, how memory or display is improved, nor do they recite any novel data structures or hardware configurations that enhance computer performance. The asserted “technical problems” and “benefits” in the specification (controlling symbol landing rates, multiple metamorphic triggers, more degrees of randomness) are directed to game design outcomes and player experience, not to improving the underlying computer/EGM functioning. The steps remain “apply RNG, select sets, display outcomes”—mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer.
There is no transformation of an article: Displaying symbols and animations does not transform an article into a different state or thing in the sense contemplated by the integration analysis.
Indicators and sequential display of bonus features are presentation-of-information outcomes; these are extra-solution activity associated with the abstract game logic rather than a technological application.
With regard to interpreting results-oriented claim language when performing a 35 USC §101 analysis, see Beteiro LLC v. DraftKings Inc., (Fed. Cir 2024) when "the claims are drafted using largely (if not entirely) result-focused functional language, containing no specificity about how the purported invention achieves these results. Claims of this nature are almost always found to be ineligible for patenting under Section 101." See also Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL Inc. (896 F.3d 1335) wherein the court found that claims to a computer software "attention manager" that displays content on unused portions of a screen were result-oriented and invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they did not recite a specific technological method for achieving the claimed result; Contour IP Holding LLC v. GoPro, Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 22825 (Fed. Cir. 2024): The court held that claims must not only describe desired outcomes but also include a specific process or machinery for achieving that result; In re Killian, 45 F.4th 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2022): The court reaffirmed that claims simply reciting a desired result without specifying how to achieve it are directed to an abstract idea and are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims at issue were directed to analyzing data from two databases. In the Step Two of the Alice test, the court determined that there was no inventive concept because the additional elements merely involved generic and routine data gathering and analysis steps that could have been performed with or without a computer.
MPEP § 2106.05(f) explains that, “The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it"”.
The pending claims do not include any technical description of mechanisms for accomplishing the claimed results. Instead, the claims use some unspecified computer and unspecified programming to conduct generic, result-oriented steps such as “select,” “generate”, “control”, for performing abstract certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims seek to cover any system and any method (such as any programming instructions) for applying the management of a wagering game. As such the claims are found to be directed to ineligible subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 2 concludes in a determination that the additional elements do not amount to a practical application of the claimed abstract ideas.
Step 2B: In this step of the Alice analysis, it is assessed whether additional elements amount to significantly more than abstract ideas. Any well-understood, routine, conventional (“WURC”) activity is also discussed along with evidentiary considerations.
Additional elements: generic processor, memory, display, and instruction execution (claims 1 and 9); performing RNG-based selections; and showing visual outcomes/indicators. These are conventional elements in the art of electronic gaming and generic computing.
WURC (well-understood, routine, conventional) analysis:
Generic computer components (processor, memory, display) are WURC. See Alice v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
Using RNGs and pay/weighted tables to determine game outcomes and payout volatility is conventional in EGMs. The specification itself describes standard EGM architectures (e.g., FIG. 2A game controller, RNG engine, RNG conversion/lookup tables, RTP management), supporting WURC. See Planet Bingo (implementing conventional computer to manage bingo outcomes was not significantly more).
“Controlling a display device to display” and “activating features” are routine result-oriented steps.
The CRM claim (Claim 9) merely places abstract instructions on a non-transitory medium; such a “Beauregard”-type claim does not add an inventive concept absent a technological improvement in the medium or execution. See In re Guldenaar; Alice.
There is no particular machine evident that is integral with the invention beyond serving as a field-of-use: The claims do not recite specialized hardware RNG, regulatory interfaces, or unconventional display controllers that would be non-WURC. There are no factual allegations or claim-level recitations of atypical, non-routine computer operations (cf. DDR Holdings or Enfish improvements) are present.
Conclusion:
Claims 1-20 are found to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Although step 1 is satisfied (the claims recite manufacture/process/machine), in Step 2A Prong 1, the claims are found to recite an abstract idea—game rules/wagering mechanics, mathematical RNG/probabilistic selections, and information presentation, and do not integrate those exceptions into a practical application nor add significantly more.
Possible Remedies:
To improve subject matter eligibility under 35 USC § 101, it is recommended to anchor the claims to concrete, non-generic technical mechanisms (such as particular software processes or nonobvious system architectures) in a way that there is evidence in the claims of certain improvements to computer or network operations or to another technology. Examples might include to:
Replace high-level “select/determine/activate/display” results-oriented steps with concrete algorithmic operations (e.g., exact table formats, index computation, thresholding functions, pipeline stages) and data structures with constraints that provide a computer-functionality improvement (improved security, faster lookup, reduced cache misses, deterministic scheduling).
Claim a particular RNG hardware/software pipeline, such as by including detailed algorithmic steps and data structures (e.g., bounded-weight lookup tables with constraints).
Limit the claims to a specific EGM hardware configuration comprising logic that is integral to, and improves, the operation of that particular machine (not just an arguably improved user experience of game outcomes). The court ruled in International Business Machines Corporation v. Zillow Group, Inc., (CAFC, 17 October, 2022), that "improving a user's experience while using a computer application is not, without more, sufficient to render the claims" patent-eligible. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
Provide specification support (benchmarks, comparative studies, regulatory compliance details) establishing that the recited computer/EGM improvements are not WURC (per Berkheimer), enabling either Step 2A integration or Step 2B “significantly more.”
Recite in the claims a technical solution to a technological problem (e.g., secure hardware-backed attestations, novel protocol flows, improved cryptographic operations, sensor fusion pipelines).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN J HYLINSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-1995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-530.
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.
/STEVEN J HYLINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715