Detailed Action
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to Applicant’s communication filed on 06/18/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a) A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-11, 14, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guerrero (US 2021/0082248 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Guerrero discloses a method of operating a gaming machine (Abstract) comprising the operations of presenting, by a presentation assembly, a plurality of symbol-bearing reels and an array, each location in the array comprising an associated multiplier (Fig. 3), spinning and stopping the plurality of reels to land symbols from the reels in the array to produce a reel spin outcome (¶ [0028]), and in response to the landed symbols of the reel spin outcome including at least one multiplier modification symbol (Fig. 4), animating modification of the multiplier associated with each location in the array in which a multiplier modification symbol landed (Figs. 5-12), in response to the landed symbols of the reel spin outcome including at least one value-bearing symbol, animating multiplication of the value borne by the landed value-bearing symbol by the multiplier associated with the respective position in the array in which the value-bearing symbol landed (Fig. 13), in response to the landed symbols of the reel spin outcome including at least one catalyst symbol (Fig. 4: 6 rings awards Epic Fortunes feature!) and at least one value-bearing symbol, animating collection of a determined number of values borne by a randomly chosen (¶ [0048]) selection of value-bearing symbols present in the array (Fig. 14), and receiving, via at least one of one or more electronic input devices, a cash out input that initiates a payout from the monetary balance via a value output device (Abstract: cashout input).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Guerrero discloses wherein the selection of value-bearing symbols comprises selecting a given value-bearing symbol more than once (Figs. 13-18).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Guerrero discloses wherein the modification of the multiplier comprises incrementing the multiplier by one (Figs. 11 – 12: 90a).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Guerrero discloses wherein the modification of the multiplier is randomly determined (¶ [0047]).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Guerrero discloses wherein the reel spin outcome is a result of a spin initiated in response to a wager (¶ [0028]).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Guerrero discloses wherein the reel spin outcome is the result of one of a series of free spins (Figs. 5-10).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Guerrero discloses wherein landing of a value-bearing symbol as part of the reel spin outcome increases the number of free spins in the series of free spins (¶ [0045]).
Claim 11 subsumes the limitations of claim 1 above and is rejected for the same reasons given supra. Further regarding claim 11, Guerrero discloses a gaming machine comprising a presentation assembly (16) a value input device configured to accept a physical item associated with a monetary value to establish a credit balance (22), a value output device configured to dispense a payout from the credit balance in response to a cashout input (22), and game-logic circuitry (46).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. If this application names joint inventors, Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 3, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guerrero in view of Singer et al (US 2003/0216165 A1).
Regarding claims 2, 3, 12 and 13, Singer suggests—where Guerrero does not disclose—wherein the determined number is a predetermined fixed number or randomly determined (¶ [0060]: the number of symbols may be randomly determined or predetermined). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Guerrero and Singer in order to allow the game designer to flexibly manage rates of return.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
First, claim 1 requires "presenting, by a presentation assembly, a plurality of symbol- bearing reels and an array, each location in the array comprising an associated multiplier." Guerrero does not disclose an array in which each location of the array has an associated multiplier. In Guerrero, multipliers are not properties of array locations; multipliers are properties of certain bonus symbols (multiplier-bearing bonus symbols 90a, 90e, 90f) that themselves land on the middle reel during the bonus feature. Guerrero [0035] describes.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Since the recited “associated multiplier” can encompass modifiers including “1x,” which is the same as no multiplication at all, the unmodified cells as depicted in Figure 3 of Guerrero can also be considered as being associated with 1x multipliers. Therefore, Examiner respectfully submits that Guerrero discloses this feature.
Applicant argues:
Second, claim 1 requires "in response to the landed symbols of the reel spin outcome including at least one multiplier modification symbol, animating modification of the multiplier associated with each location in the array in which a multiplier modification symbol landed." Guerrero discloses no multiplier modification symbol and no operation of modifying a location- resident multiplier.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. After the bonus spin sequence depicted in Figs. 4 – 12, the cells in the third column of the matrix have now been animated to show the presence of award multipliers in the column. Therefore, Examiner respectfully submits that Guerrero discloses this feature.
.
Applicant argues:
Third, claim 1 requires "in response to the landed symbols of the reel spin outcome
including at least one value-bearing symbol, animating multiplication of the value borne by the landed value-bearing symbol by the multiplier associated with the respective position in the array in which the value-bearing symbol landed." The claim ties the multiplier applied to a landed value-bearing symbol to the multiplier at the same position where the value-bearing symbol landed..
Again, since the symbol array multipliers can be 1x, the effect of the multiplication operation as depicted in Figs. 13 – 18 has been to increase the multipliers from 1x to 5x. Therefore, Examiner respectfully submits that Guerrero discloses this feature..
Applicant argues:
Fourth, claim 1 requires "in response to the landed symbols of the reel spin outcome including at least one catalyst symbol and at least one value-bearing symbol, animating collection of a determined number of values borne by a randomly chosen selection of value- bearing symbols present in the array." Guerrero does not disclose this operation.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In paragraph [0048], Guerrero discloses that “the CPU randomly applies the 5x multiplier to a subset of the bonus symbols on the other reels.” Examiner respectfully submits that this disclosure reads on the stated limitation.
Applicant argues:
The motivation the Office Action articulates for the proposed combination, "to allow the game designer to flexibly manage rates of return," is conclusory and does not establish a prima facie case of obviousness under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007), and MPEP § 2143. The articulated rationale would, taken at face value, permit substitution of essentially any value with a randomly-determined or predetermined alternative across the gaming arts; it does not address why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have selected Singer's bonus-trigger threshold disclosure as a teaching applicable to the distinct catalyst-triggered collection mechanic claim 1 recites, particularly given that claim l's catalyst- and-collection architecture is itself absent from Guerrero..
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the cited motivation of managing rates of return is well-known to persons of ordinary skill in the gaming art and makes the games attractive to players and ensures that they conform to applicable regulations. Examiner respectfully submits that this meets the obviousness standard.
.
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 extension fee 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 STEVE ROWLAND whose telephone number is (469) 295-9129. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 10-8. 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 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.
/STEVE ROWLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights