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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, and that even if a judicial exception is recited, the claims integrate the exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. Applicant relies primarily on paragraphs [0065]–[0066] (and related paragraphs [0067]–[0071]) of the specification, which describe alleged technical problems and resulting technical effects/benefits.
Applicant further argues that the amended claim language (particularly the requirement that the second reel subset, including positions that previously displayed first output symbols, is respun) and new Claim 21 (dynamic memory lookups for different reel strips keyed to the number of displayed qualifier symbols) reflect these asserted improvements and therefore establish a practical application under MPEP § 2106.05(a).
These arguments are unpersuasive for the following reasons.
First, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims continue to recite an abstract idea. The claims are directed to rules for managing and conducting a wagering game; specifically, rules for displaying and accumulating symbol values across multiple plays of an electronic game. This falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping (commercial or legal interactions, including managing bets and payouts in a game of chance) and, alternatively, mental processes. See Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F. App’x 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014); In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The addition of language requiring that certain reel positions be respun, or that different reel strips be selected based on the number of qualifier symbols, does not change the character of the claims; these remain rules governing how the game is played and how awards are accumulated and displayed.
Second, under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The Examiner has carefully evaluated the specification’s description of the asserted technical problems and benefits, as required by MPEP § 2106.05(a). While the specification asserts that the invention solves certain problems and produces certain effects, the claims themselves do not reflect a technological improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field.
Controlling RTP by selecting different reel strips according to the number of displayed qualifier symbols (Claim 21) is a conventional game-design parameter choice. Electronic gaming machines have long selected or weighted reel strips (or entire reel sets) based on game state, including the number of held, special, or accumulating symbols, in order to maintain a target return-to-player percentage required by regulation. This is an implementation of the abstract game rules themselves, not an improvement to computer functionality, data structures, or display technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(a) (“[I]mprovements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field” must be reflected in the claims and must be technological in nature). RTP management is a business/regulatory constraint of the gaming industry, not a technological problem solved by the claims.
Animations that communicate the addition of output amounts to qualifier symbols (Claims 2–3) and the display of complex information in a limited area are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Visual feedback, including animations that show values being added or symbols transforming, is routine in electronic gaming machines and does not improve the display technology itself or the way a computer processes or presents information beyond applying the abstract idea.
The generic processor, memory, and display of reels remain recited at a high level of generality and amount to nothing more than “apply it” on a conventional electronic gaming machine. The claims do not improve the way the computer stores, retrieves, or processes data; they do not provide a specific technological solution to a technological problem; and they do not transform or reduce an article to a different state or thing.
The claims are readily distinguishable from cases in which eligibility was found because the invention improved computer functionality itself (e.g., Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) – self-referential table improving computer memory; McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) – specific rules improving computer animation of facial expressions; DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) – solution to a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks). Here, the focus of the claims remains the abstract rules for accumulating and awarding values in a wagering game, implemented on generic computing components with conventional visual and reel-strip techniques.
Third, under Step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The processor, memory, display of reels and animations, and selection of reel strips based on the number of qualifier symbols are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the electronic gaming art. This is evidenced by the prior art of record (YOU, US 2017/0372558 A1), (Marks, US 2019/0051097 A1) and (Meyer, US 2021/0150849 A1) and by the long-standing industry practice of using state-dependent reel strips to control RTP and of providing animated visual feedback for value accumulation. See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Accordingly, the claims remain directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The 101 rejection is maintained.
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 1-19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes and/ or certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
More specifically, regarding Step 1, of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a machine, process, and/or an article of manufacturer, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a – Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
The claims recite an abstract idea. Representative Claim 1 recites rules for managing an electronic game: causing display of reels comprising a first reel subset for qualifier symbols and a second reel subset for output symbols; for a first play, displaying a first qualifier and first output symbols and adding the associated output amounts to the first qualifier; for a second play in which the second reel subset (including positions that previously displayed the first output symbols) is respun, displaying a second qualifier while the first remains displayed, displaying second output symbols, and adding the second output amounts to both qualifiers. Dependent claims add animations communicating the additions, specific reel positions, multiple plays with possible increases in the number of plays, additional qualifiers, final awards of accumulated totals, and (Claim 21) memory lookups for different reel strips based on the number of displayed qualifiers.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations describe rules for conducting and managing a wagering game that falls under a certain method of organizing human activity (commercial interaction/managing bets and payouts in a game of chance) and/or mental processes. The claims are analogous to those held abstract in Planet Bingo, In re Smith, and In re Marco Guldenaar Holding. The focus of the claims is the abstract rules themselves, not any technological improvement.
Step 2a – Prong 2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition - see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing – see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea- see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h)
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements are a generic electronic gaming device (or processor/memory) that causes display of reels, symbols, and animations, and that performs memory lookups for reel strips. These elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a conventional computer. There is no improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, no particular machine beyond a generic EGM, no transformation of an article, and no meaningful limitation beyond the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(h). The asserted benefits regarding RTP control, efficient communication via animations, and device versatility are either part of the abstract idea, insignificant extra-solution activity, or field-of-use limitations.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The processor, memory, display of reels/symbols/animations, and selection of reel strips based on game state (number of qualifier symbols) are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the electronic gaming industry. As a whole, the claims append conventional elements to the abstract idea without supplying an inventive concept.
For the foregoing reasons, Claims 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Filing of New or Amended Claims
The examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the original disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. See Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263, 191 USPQ at 97 (“[T]he PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). However, when filing an amendment an applicant should show support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims. See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 (“Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”). Please see MPEP 2163 (II) 3. (b)
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SENG H LIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3301. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/Seng H Lim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights