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 and terminal disclaimer filed on and approved on 05/28/2026.
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 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to organizing human activity in the form of fundamental economic activities directed to hedging (wagering games are recognized as a form of hedging) and a mental process without significantly more. As per step 1 examiner recognizes the claims are directed towards methods performed by gaming devices or gaming systems. Therefore step 1 is met. As per step 2A the claim(s) recite(s) “initiating a casino wagering game; displaying, on the electronic display device, an initial configuration of the active array for a first game level; generating special symbols in the active array; in response to a first predetermined number of the special symbols appearing in the active array over one or more spins, progressing from the first game level to a second game level by: expanding the active array to include additional symbol positions; animating the expansion on the electronic display device, wherein the animation includes a visual indication of a first progressive jackpot associated with the initial configuration being replaced by a visual indication of a second progressive jackpot associated with the expanded active array; and repeating the generating operation with the expanded active array for one or more additional spins; and providing an award based on the special symbols and the current game level, wherein the first jackpot value is not an available award after progressing to the second game level.” a wagering game comprising a slot game wherein during a first game level a first array is presented and based on a predetermined number of symbols occurring during a plurality of plays progress to a second game level which comprises an expanded array and the second jackpot value wherein the first jackpot value is no longer available. Specifically rules for the play of a slot game. Dependent claims further include rules such as how an array is expanded, what symbols is used as the special symbol, and how to progress from a first level to a second or third level including use of animations. As per the hedging component examiner recognizes that bolded language include the use of term “wager game”, “progressive jackpot”, and the step of awarding a jackpot. Therefore the claims are directed towards a wagering game which is a form of hedging which involve the human activity of an individual taking a financial risk in order to win a form of profit. In this case a player and a game operator put at risk monetary value based on the outcome of a game. Further paragraph [0036] of the disclosure defines a progressive jackpot as being funded by wagers and involving the payout of wagers. Therefore a financial component is present during the play of the game and the game involves wagers. As per the mental step further bolded language such as “in response to” comprises a game rule wherein the mental step of observation and a determination is made regarding a state of the game which is a step that can be performed mentally. Specifically a player can observe an outcome of a slot game, such as symbols displayed, and count the number of symbols of a special type that occur in order to make the determination if the game should progress from a first level to a second. Therefore the claims are directed towards rules for a game which can be performed in the mind. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims remain directed towards hedging and mental steps in the form of game rules which provide a financial reward. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the elements cited above remain directed towards playing of a game involving hedging using rules that can be performed mentally and does not include steps that goes beyond those rules or which is not addressed in step 2B. Specifically a game is a series of rules which can be performed mentally based on observation and no recited steps go beyond conventional feature or extra solution activity that cannot be performed in the mind or which does not involve hedging. The claims do not comprise a practical application such as the improvement in the function of a machine but instead go towards how to play a particular game which comprises game rules. 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.
Limitations "method of operating a gaming machine, the gaming machine including an electronic display device configured to display an active array of symbol positions", "displaying, on the electronic display device, an initial configuration of the active array for a first game level", “a gaming cabinet, game-logic circuitry securely housed within a locked box inside the gaming cabinet, the game-logic circuitry including memory comprising one or more memory devices, the memory storing an authentication program, a trusted authentication code, game- execution code, and programming for a random number generator (RNG) configured to cycle continuously in the background between spins and during spins at a speed that cannot be timed by a player”, “prior to executing the game-execution code, executing, by the authentication program, authentication of the game-execution code and the RNG programming by generating a live authentication code based on contents of the memory and comparing the live authentication code to the trusted authentication code stored in the memory, and permitting execution of the game-execution code only when the comparing indicates a match; in response to the permitting, executing, by the game-logic circuitry, the game-execution code to perform the operations”, “maintaining, in memory, game-state data indicative of game state across spins”, and specific animation steps, and other associated hardware elements. 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 convention 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]). Hornik et al. (US Pub. No. 2006/0148548 A1) teaches "a video slot machine comprising conventional gaming terminal components including input devices, such as wager acceptor(s) 102, payout device 108, a main display 112, which may comprise a touch screen display portion 104, push-buttons 106, and an information reader (e.g., player-identification card reader) 110." paragraph [0022] wherein buttons include "buttons integrated with a touch-screen display, and allow players to select various options with respect to the games played on the gaming terminal 100" paragraph [0022]. Specifically it is conventional to communicate data to output to a user comprising animated reels 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 expanding arrays or advertising level changes via animation to output a feature of the game since the displaying of this step is extra solution activity and directed to the outputting of data to inform a player which is conventional to the art. The particular theme used in animation, such as how to display an award, is extra solution activity which does not provide a practical application and is recognized as being directed towards conventional gaming steps such as animation of a game outcome. The particular images shown are design and theme choices which are extra solution activity. As per the continuous cycling random number generator examiner finds that the particular random number generator used is extra solution activity since the invention is directed towards a play of a game and not how a random number is generated. Even with this examiner points to "RNGs – What Are They, and Are They Random?" by Buddy Frank at page 3 “One gaming software engineer used the analogy that many of the early slot machine PRNGs were like a giant loop of random numbers that is constantly rotating. Once the spin or play button is hit, the computer program does a few quick housekeeping chores, like determining the credits played and the paytable, then stops on the number that happens to be looping by at that precise instant.” which shows the conventional feature of looping random numbers with the current random number selected at the time of determination to produce an outcome. See Peek (US Pub. No. 2009/0203430 A1) regarding a lock box which contains the CPU and memory elements "As is generally known, a "brain box" is typically a sheet metal enclosure within the gaming machine that is adapted to house a number of critical components, such as the MGC or CPU, as well as various memory devices, such as some RAM, NVRAM, the hard drive, and other such components. This brain box can come with a lock, and may be removable from the gaming machine as an entire unit in some cases." paragraph [0052]. Therefore the inclusion of the lock box is conventional in nature and extra solution activity since the invention is directed towards the game and not the structure of the gaming machine. The use of a lock box for the CPU elements has no effect on the inventive concept and does not modify the claimed steps. Takeda (US Pat. No. 6,190,257) the use of authentication programs before the start of an electronic game to confirm the game's authenticity are known including several techniques for performing the task (col. 30, lines 42-60). Therefore the inclusion of authentication software goes towards known conventional features in the art and are is also extra solution activity since the invention is directed towards the game and not the means to authenticate the game. Specifically the game steps are not modified based on how the game is authenticated. As per recording the state of the game and outputting the state of the game this reds on the conventional feature of the usage of memory in a computing device to store data and to process or output the data that is stored. This is a conventional feature of computing, including electronic gaming, and the recitation does not appear to add significantly more to the game steps beyond the known conventional feature of recording information. Therefore the hardware and animation features do not provide a practical application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended claims overcome 101. See updated step 2B which addresses the additional elements. As per applicant’s arguments that hedging is overcome by canceling of claims 10 and 20 examiner points out that the independent claims are still directed towards wagering language such as recited wagering games which include progressive jackpots. Examiner recognizes that recitation of wagering and recitation of progressive jackpot reads on features of a risk being taken by a player, see wagering, and an operator, see jackpot, wherein the jackpot in a progressive game is funded by wagers. Therefore the wagering game elements are still recited. As per arguments that examiner imports features from the disclosure improperly examiner points out that the plain meaning of a progressive jackpot reads on a progressive game wherein the jackpot is funded via portions of the wagers of the players which is a wagering game. Applicant should amend to indicate the game is non-wagering in nature.
Applicant argues against the mental step by pointing to hardware and software methods such as animation. Examiner points out that this is addressed in step 2B. Implementing a judicial exception on a computer does not overcome a 101 rejection unless step 2B is overcome.
Applicant makes practical improvement arguments regarding the amended inclusion of the elements addressed in step 2B. Regarding security this improvement is directed towards extra solution elements and additionally an improvement that is conventional in nature using conventional elements. Specifically securing machines is a conventional feature in the art and the motivation in conventional in nature. Applicant’s game rules are not directed or focused on increasing the security but instead rely upon citing conventional elements known in the art. The inclusion of a lock box for example modifies the machine hardware and not the award tiers which are the inventive feature. The inclusion of security software modifies the security elements of the software and not the inventive steps of the award tiers. Award tiers, as recited, do not go towards security functions but instead game rules. The additional elements are therefore extra solution activity and further are conventional. Therefore this does not overcome step 2A.
As per memory states see above. Storing a state of a computing machine and then using that state for further calculations and display is conventional. For example this is the purpose of registers and buffers in computing as well as commonly known RAM. Applicant’s claims are additional not an inventive feature tied to how states are processed in a computing sense but instead are implementations of game rules. The flow of argued states is no more than the carrying out of a rule and does not comprise an improvement to how states are handled in a gaming machine. Unique rules regarding a game that are stored as a state are not a practical improvement but instead the known storage of a state of a game.
Regarding the animation examiner points to above step 2B. The act of animating unique game rules is not more than conventional in nature and the theme is extra solution activity. The act of implementing an exception on a computing machine does not overcome 101. Applicant argues that their disclosure indicates the animation comprises new improvements to the technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees and finds the animation is directed towards outputting a state of the game related to the rules and does not comprise a new improvement to the technology. Specifically the display still functions in a standard method and does not see efficiency improvements as opposed to other known games. Regarding new animations unless the animation comprises new techniques beyond displaying of a game state this reads on outputting of a game state which is conventional. Examiner requests clarity how the animation differ beyond outputting a state of the game based on a theme of the game.
Applicant makes a further argument that the machine recited is non-conventional based on the inclusion of various features which are addressed in step 2B. Specifically that multiple arts are relied upon as evidence. Examiner points out that the mere number of references cited in step 2B does not go towards proving unconventional elements but instead that it has to be shown that including known elements produces an unconventional machine. Elements like security software or security hardware are known in the art and therefore the inclusion would not be unconventional. Adding more elements does not change the function of the machine to include security or add more to the game rules identified in step 2A. The same applies to how random numbers are determined, how information is saved, or how a display is output if those elements are conventional in nature. Additionally the inclusion of more elements read on extra solution activity since the inventive concept of award tier rules as claimed does not include elements of security, how the random number is determined, how information is stored, or numerous other features conventional to gaming. Instead the inventive concept is how a game is played. As per the rules used adding behavior to the machine as a means to overcome 101 this goes against Alice wherein it is found even an inventive concept is ineligible if it is an exception even when performed on a machine. The inclusion of a machine does not overcome step 2B.
Regarding arguments directed to the 8/4/2025 memorandum examiner believes that each claims has been addressed and not overly simplified. See above with each applicant arguments addressed regarding the claims as a whole with individual elements considered when appropriate.
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 7/10/2026
Prosecution Insights