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 it is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter
3. Step 2A:
4. Under Step 2A, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The claims are directed to rules of a game which is under the abstract idea category of “methods for organizing human activity” (See MPEP 2106, which states “The patentee claimed a method of playing a dice game including placing wagers on whether certain die faces will appear face up. 911 F.3d at 1160; 129 USPQ2d at 1011. The Federal Circuit determined that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of “rules for playing games”, which the court characterized as a certain method of organizing human activity”).
5. The claim language presents a reel-based game machine incorporating a set of rules that presents a reel based game wherein an outcome includes one or more configurable game symbols that are held in their positions, while other positions within the reel array become their own individual reels to produce both configurable and non-configurable symbols. This process is conducted of a series of virtual reel spins and an award is determined from a number of collected configurable game symbols at the end of the series. This is exemplified in the independent claims. Other dependents describe how the game is presented including indicating that configurable symbols are displayed on separate reels or that symbols are displayed on each virtual reel. However, these limitations or steps are merely describing a series of game rules presented on a virtual display. Game rules have previously been determined to be an abstract idea, under the grouping of a method of organizing human activity. These claims merely use a generic computer programmed to perform random outcome generations, as a tool for performing rules of the game. For these reasons, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of methods of organizing human behavior.
The second prong of Step 2A, ask whether the claims recite additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Here, no such practical application exists. As stated above, the claims recite a game using configurable symbols. However, the claims do not address a problem longstanding in computer history, and thus lack practical application. Additionally, there is no practical application as there is no particular machine that is used to implement the claim language, but instead and as will be discussed below only generic computers are used to perform the invention. Also, there is no transformation of the machine used in the application into a different state or thing. Lastly, the claims do not attempt to apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond simply using the claimed machine.
7. Step 2B asks whether a claimed invention which fails Step 2A contains an inventive concept, i.e. significantly more. Here the invention does not recite significantly more than a generic computer in the form of a server and client devices, network interface, memory, game controller, display, and storage. However, Examiner takes Official Notice that all are well-known, routine, and understood within the art. The claim is directed to an abstract idea that lacks significantly more and thus is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant begins their arguments stating that “Applicant respectfully submits that replacing base game reels (e.g., that occupy pluralities of symbol positions) with feature game reels, where each symbol position has its own reel in the feature game, provides technical improvements in the technical field of electronic gaming by allowing a single device to provide different electronic games (e.g., a base game and a feature game) with different reel sizes.” However, such is not a problem longstanding in computer gaming technology, nor can be properly read from the Specification, or reasonably thought of by one of ordinary skill in the art could deduce as an improvement after reading the Specification. Additionally, the game display is not providing different electronic games of different reel sizes, as in physically providing said game, but instead merely using programming to provide a virtual imitation of a first and second game with different reel sizes. Thus, said process is only programming in order to display the game and game rules, but does not offer a technical improvement on the display itself. The Courts have ruled in the past that such improvements include rendering images, “an improved user interface for electronic devices that displays an application summary of unlaunched applications, where the particular data in the summary is selectable by a user to launch the respective application,” and providing a specific interface that aided in the navigation of three dimensional spreadsheets to directly address problems previously known in the technology. Thus, expanding the reels from three reels to nine, does not further provide practical application.
Additionally, Applicant states “that computer resources are saved and computer efficiency is increased by providing configurable symbols that do not have a fixed value assigned thereto, and rather are assigned a value randomly. Thus, the same configurable symbols on the reels may be assigned different values for different plays of an electronic game, decreasing the number of display positions needed on the reels (e.g., instead of providing additional fixed-value symbols on the reels, the values associated with the configurable symbols can be modified) and increasing computer efficiency due to the fewer positions on the reels.” However, Examiner contends that simply not including a plurality of symbols in favor of one modifiable symbol does not inherently reduce computer resources. On a very surface level that may be the case, however one does not know the computing power and programming complexities necessary to generate the displayed amounts on the configurable symbols. This processing amount can be quite vast depending on the complexity of code to meet regulations and gaming parameters, as opposed to merely including static symbols. Thus, without more information, Applicant’s conclusion can not be established, and thus neither can the practical application of such a claim. For these reasons the claims remain rejected.
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 REGINALD A RENWICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm.
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.
REGINALD A. RENWICK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3714
/REGINALD A RENWICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights