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
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s arguments in the Response dated August 11, 2026 directed to the Non-Final Office Action dated May 28, 2026. Claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-19 are pending in the application and subject to examination as part of this office action.
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 1-7, 9-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Each of claims 1-20 have been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
The determination of subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, relies on the Mayo/Alice two-step analysis.
In step 1 of the analysis, the claims are evaluated to determine whether they fall within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In the present case, claims 1-7 are directed to an electronic gaming device (i.e., a machine), claims 9-15 are directed to a non-transient computer readable medium (i.e., a machine), and claims 17-19 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). The claims are, therefore directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner is directed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. The claims are compared to groupings of subject matter that have been found by courts as abstract ideas. These groupings include
(a) Mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity—fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
(c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1 recites (the abstract idea is underlined) an electronic gaming device comprising:
at least one memory with instructions stored thereon; and
at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
cause display of a first spin of a plurality of reels for an electronic game, wherein the first spin is associated with a first output amount;
cause display of a second spin of the plurality of reels based upon a first random determination that the second spin will be provided based at least in part upon a first spin probability stored in the at least one memory;
cause the first spin probability to be updated to a second spin probability in the at least one memory based at least in part upon the second spin being provided and a threshold number of spins in the electronic game being played;
cause display of a third spin of the plurality of reels based upon a second random determination that the third spin will be provided based at least in part upon the second spin probability stored in the at least one memory; and
cause the second spin probability to be updated to a third spin probability in the at least one memory based at least in part upon the third spin being provided.
Claim 9 recites (the abstract idea is underlined) at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
cause display of a first spin of a plurality of reels for an electronic game at an electronic gaming device, wherein the first spin is associated with a first output amount;
cause display of a second spin of the plurality of reels at the electronic gaming device based upon a first random determination that the second spin will be provided based at least in part upon a first spin probability stored in the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium;
cause the first spin probability to be updated to a second spin probability in the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium based at least in part upon the second spin being provided and a threshold number of spins in the electronic game being played;
cause display of a third spin of the plurality of reels at the electronic gaming device based upon a second random determination that the third spin will be provided based at least in part upon the second spin probability stored in the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium; and
cause the second spin probability to be updated to a third spin probability in the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium based at least in part upon the third spin being provided.
Claim 17 recites (the abstract idea is underlined) a method of electronic gaming implemented by at least one processor in communication with at least one memory, the method comprising:
causing display of a first spin of a plurality of reels for an electronic game at an electronic gaming device, wherein the first spin is associated with a first output amount;
causing display of a second spin of the plurality of reels at the electronic gaming device based upon a first random determination that the second spin will be provided based at least in part upon a first spin probability stored in the at least one memory;
causing the first spin probability to be updated to a second spin probability in the at least one memory based at least in part upon the second spin being provided and a threshold number of spins in the electronic game being played;
causing display of a third spin of the plurality of reels at the electronic gaming device based upon a second random determination that the third spin will be provided based at least in part upon the second spin probability stored in the at least one memory; and
causing the second spin probability to be updated to a third spin probability in the at least one memory based at least in part upon the third spin being provided.
The steps, as a whole, recite the instructions for a game involving spins of a plurality of reels resulting in an output amount and subsequent spins depending on spin probabilities. This falls into the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, the game of chance falls into the sub-category of fundamental economic practices. The rules of the game also fall into the sub-category of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The “determining” steps (not the “random determination” steps) are concepts that can be performed in the human mind and therefore fall within the category of mental processes. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under prong 2 of Step 2A, the examiner considers whether additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. To do so, the examiner looks to the following exemplary considerations, looking at the elements individually and in combination:
• an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
• an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (not considered relevant to the present claims);
• an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
• an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
• an additional element applies or uses 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.
The additional elements in the present claims are “at least one memory”, “at least one processor”, “an electronic gaming device”, and “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”. The additional elements do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The additional elements do not implement a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. The additional elements do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The additional elements do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The examiner considers if the additional elements:
• add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Thus, the additional elements evaluated under Step 2A are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional, as shown:
at least one memory, at least one processor, an electronic gaming device, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Vagner, US 2015/0302482 A1, a general computer can include a memory, a processor, input/out components, and other components that are common for general computers, all of which are well known in the art [0099]).
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, taking the claimed elements individually yields no difference from taking them in combination because each element simply performs its respective function as discussed above. The claims merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic, functional, and conventional components well-known in the art. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Prior Art Rejections
There are currently no prior art rejections against claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WERNER G GARNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7147. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-15:30 EST.
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, DAVID LEWIS can be reached at (571) 272-7673. 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.
/WERNER G GARNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights