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 .
Status of Claim
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications filed on 10 of October 2025.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 1-8 and 10-12 are currently pending and are rejected as described below.
Response to Argument/Remarks
USC § 101
Applicant asserts that the amended claims explicitly recite a central server and web server architecture that implements match-algorithm code accessible through a web portal, as described in the specification at ¶100, 105, 309. While the specification may help illuminate the true focus of a claim, when analyzing patent eligibility, reliance on the specification must always yield to the claim language in identifying that focus." Id. at 766; see also Trinity Info Media, 72 F.4th at 1363 ("Our focus is on the claims, as informed by the specification."). At bottom, we must "articulate what the claims are directed to with enough specificity to ensure the step one inquiry is meaningful." Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Therefore, the invention remains an observation (i.e. a mental process) of determining the recommendation information corresponding to the user identifier based on skills and a mathematical calculation (i.e. a mathematical concept) of determining a scored value via a scoring model merely applied by generic computer components disclosed at a high level of generality and do not satisfy the Alice Test. Further, these components form a concrete technological environment that executes computational steps-ranking, reassignment, constraint checking, and display of results-that cannot be performed mentally. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Prong I of step 2A evaluates whether the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) if the claim recites a judicial exception, then we advance to Prong II which evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. Matching players or employees to a team/employer within a tiered salary structure, similarly to what takes place during a professional athletes’ draft has been done mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper prior to the advent of computers. Further, the nature of drafting professional athletes fall within managing human behavior or relationships and commercial or legal interactions as it involves salary and contract discussions between players and teams, both known abstract idea buckets under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities. The use of a matching algorithm is a mathematical concept used as a mathematical calculation to prioritize a match between players and teams.
Applicant asserts that the claimed operations go beyond "organizing human activity" and constitute a specific improvement in computer-based data coordination. As in McRO v. Bandai Namco Games, 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the claims define rules implemented in software that automatically determine outcomes not attainable by manual processes. The invention thus is not a mental process or a method of organizing human activity. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant again relies on an argument that’s not applicable under Step 2A Prong One which evaluates whether the claims recite a judicial exception. Nevertheless, under Prong II of Step 2A analysis, the court explained that the claims in the '576 and '278 patents were directed to an improvement in computer animation, and not merely an abstract concept. Unlike other cases where computer automation of existing methods was deemed an abstract idea, the patented claims in McRO included steps that were not carried out in the same way as prior art methods. The court noted that the "incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that 'improved the existing technological process.'" The claims also did not preempt all rules-based animation techniques, but were limited to a particular configuration of rule sets. Unlike McRO, the amended claims are aimed at matching teams and players based on a hierarchy. Considered as an ordered combination, the generic computer components of applicant’s claimed invention add nothing that is not already present when the limitations are considered separately. For example, claim 1 does not purport to improve the functioning of the computer components themselves. Nor does it affect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, claim 1 amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using generic computer components performing routine computer functions. That is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225-26. Mere automation of a manual process or claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See MPEP 2106.04(a); MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.05(f); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
Applicant asserts that the claimed computer elements restrict any abstract idea to a specific technological environment and provide a meaningful limitation, consistent with MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2) and DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com, 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The claims thus improve the functioning of a computer network itself, not simply automate human judgment. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims at issue in DDR were found to be eligible because they were directed to addressing a technical problem specifically arising in the realm of technology of computer networks. This is not the case in the instant application as the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant’s rationale for this assertion is merely based on the fact that since DDR includes a computer server, web pages, and storage of data, then adding a limitation that recites the central server, web interfaces, and databases will make the claims of the instant application eligible. This would only work if eligibility analysis is determined in a vacuum and is merely reliant on claim language absent any consideration of the invention as a whole as described in the original specification as filed. In DDR, the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by making two distinct web pages look alike. Thus, the claim is eligible because it is not directed to the recited judicial exception. DDR provided a technological solution to an issue rooted in computer technology. Applicant’s claims do not recite the same fact pattern. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Applicant asserts that the claims contain an inventive concept that transforms the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application. The Examiner has not provided any evidence that the following features are well-understood, routine, or conventional as emphasized in Berkheimer. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The Federal Circuit in Berkheimer made clear that “not every § 101 determination contains genuine disputes over the underlying facts material to the § 101 inquiry.” Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1368. In fact, the Federal Circuit in Berkheimer did not require evidentiary support for independent claim 1 because “[t]he limitations [of claim 1] amount to no more than performing the abstract idea of parsing and comparing data with conventional computer components.” /d. at 1370. Further, MPEP 2106.05(f) disclose that whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “said team computerized system interface”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Dependent claims 2-6 depend on the aforementioned independent claim and are rejected for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
35 USC § 101--Rejection
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 1-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014). First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. See MPEP 2106.03(II).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
With respect to 2A Prong 1, claim 1 recites “a. storing, in non-transitory computer-readable storage of the central server, data associated with: i. a league comprising a plurality of teams and a plurality of players; ii. a hierarchical tiered salary structure, with predetermined salaries for each tier and predetermined numbers of players at each tier; b. receiving to a computerized match system, through a web portal hosted by a web server coupled to the central server, from player user accounts, rank-ordered lists of preferred teams; c. receiving to a computerized match system, through a team web portal, from team user accounts, selection lists of desired players for a tier; d. executing, by said processors of the central server, match-algorithm code of said computerized match system that prioritizes a match between a selected player and a selecting team based upon criteria comprising: whether said selected player is a member of said selecting team, and the rank position of said team within said selected player's rank order; e. said computerized match system moving a player from a first matched team to a subsequently selecting higher ranked team upon said higher ranked team's selection of said player; f. said first matched team submitting an alternate player via said team computerized system interface to fill the team position vacancy created by said player movement to a higher ranked team; and g. repeating steps c through g for each team in said league until all first tier team positions are filled”, and therefore recites an abstract idea.
More specifically, claim 1 is directed to “Mental Processes”, specifically “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)”, “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, specifically “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions” as well as “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”, and “Mathematical Concepts” specifically “mathematical calculations” as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), and in the 2019-01-08 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-6 contain the same abstract idea with respect to claim 1 and it further limits the abstract idea.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the examiner acknowledges that Claim 1 recites additional elements yet the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order for the judicial exception to be “integrated into a practical application”, an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim “will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 54 (Jan. 7, 2019). The courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application when “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (Jan. 7, 2019); MPEP § 2106.05(h).
In particular, the independent claim 1 recites additional elements boldened and highlighted above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Further, the remaining additional element directed to transmitting and storing information reflect insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites additional elements boldened and highlighted above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, as evidenced by at least ¶99-100 “As implemented using a computerized system, computer processor effected processes and methods according to an embodiment of the present invention may include the following: A team makes selections via a system web portal or front end comprising a graphic user interface (GUI) displayed via a browser window or custom web application. First, the team owner logs into the system via the GUI using one or more certifications unique to that owner and assigned to that owner within the system. Such certifications may include a username and password but may also include biometric or electronic certifications, such as fingerprint reader, magnetic card reader, RFID reader, chip reader, or the like, as known in the prior art for certifying a user to a computer or computer system. After certification, the owner may then continue to interact with the system GUI to enter information requisite for the system to generate a Match such as the team's ranked list of desired players”.
As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements, when recited alone or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites additional elements “a central server” accessible over “the Internet”, or over “an intranet”, by “player and team computerized system interfaces”. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in view of MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B, claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites additional elements boldened and highlighted above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, as evidenced by at least ¶99-100 “As implemented using a computerized system, computer processor effected processes and methods according to an embodiment of the present invention may include the following: A team makes selections via a system web portal or front end comprising a graphic user interface (GUI) displayed via a browser window or custom web application. First, the team owner logs into the system via the GUI using one or more certifications unique to that owner and assigned to that owner within the system. Such certifications may include a username and password but may also include biometric or electronic certifications, such as fingerprint reader, magnetic card reader, RFID reader, chip reader, or the like, as known in the prior art for certifying a user to a computer or computer system. After certification, the owner may then continue to interact with the system GUI to enter information requisite for the system to generate a Match such as the team's ranked list of desired players”.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 6 further recite abstract idea(s) contained within the independent claims, and do not contribute to significant more or enable practical application. Thus, the dependent claims are rejected under 101 based on the same rationale as the independent claims.
With respect to 2A Prong 1, claim 7 recites “a. providing a league comprising a plurality of teams and a plurality of players; b. providing a computerized comprehensive match system;
c. each participating player submitting to said computerized comprehensive match system, via a player computerized system interface, a rank order of teams in a league in order of said player's preference; d. said computerized comprehensive match system providing, via said team computerized system interface, a display of all players by name or other indicia, a display of system tiers, via numerical or other indicia, proximate each of said player names, a display of tier selection status, via color or other indicia, for each of said system tiers for each of said players, e. each participating team submitting a selection of players to said computerized comprehensive match system via said team computerized system interface; f. said computerized comprehensive match system prioritizing a match between a selected player and a selecting team based upon criteria comprising: tier level; whether said selected player is a member of said selecting team; the rank position of said team within said selected player's rank order; g. said computerized comprehensive match system moving a player from a first matched team to a subsequently selecting higher ranked team upon said higher ranked team's selection of said player; h. said first matched team submitting an alternate player to fill the team position vacancy created by said player movement to a higher ranked team; and i. repeating steps e through h for each participating team until all team positions are filled”, and therefore recites an abstract idea.
More specifically, claim 7 is directed to “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, specifically “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions” as well as “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)” as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), and in the 2019-01-08 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8 contains the same abstract idea with respect to claim 7 and it further limits the abstract idea.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the examiner acknowledges that Claim 7 recites additional elements yet the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order for the judicial exception to be “integrated into a practical application”, an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim “will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 54 (Jan. 7, 2019). The courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application when “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (Jan. 7, 2019); MPEP § 2106.05(h).
In particular, the independent claim 7 recites additional elements boldened and highlighted above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in view of MPEP 2106.05(g). Further, the remaining additional elements directed to receiving/sending/transmitting/gathering data reflect insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception. Further, the remaining additional element directed to displaying results (italicized above) reflects insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea
With respect to step 2B, claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites additional elements boldened and highlighted above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, as evidenced by at least ¶99-100 “As implemented using a computerized system, computer processor effected processes and methods according to an embodiment of the present invention may include the following: A team makes selections via a system web portal or front end comprising a graphic user interface (GUI) displayed via a browser window or custom web application. First, the team owner logs into the system via the GUI using one or more certifications unique to that owner and assigned to that owner within the system. Such certifications may include a username and password but may also include biometric or electronic certifications, such as fingerprint reader, magnetic card reader, RFID reader, chip reader, or the like, as known in the prior art for certifying a user to a computer or computer system. After certification, the owner may then continue to interact with the system GUI to enter information requisite for the system to generate a Match such as the team's ranked list of desired players”.
As a result, claim 7 does not include additional elements, when recited alone or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Claim 8 does not disclose additional elements, further narrowing the abstract ideas of the independent claims and thus not practically integrated under prong 2A as part of a practical application or under 2B not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
With respect to 2A Prong 1, claim 10 recites “a. providing league comprising a plurality of teams and a plurality of players; b. providing a computerized match system comprising a central server accessible via one or more web interfaces over the Internet or an intranet, said central server comprising one or more system servers, including a web server; c. loading a hierarchical tiered salary structure, with predetermined salaries for each tier and predetermined numbers of players at each tier, into a database that is stored on said central server or on a separate database server in communication with said central server; d. a player submitting to said computerized match system, via a player computerized system interface in communication with said central server via one of said web interfaces, a rank order of teams in a league in order of said player's preference, said rank order stored into a database that is stored on said central server; e. a team submitting to said computerized match system, via a team computerized system interface in communication with said central server via one of said web interfaces, an initial selection of players for a first tier, said initial selection of players for a first tier stored into a database that is stored on said central server; f. running match algorithm processes via computerized match system computer code on the central server to prioritize a match between a selected player and a selecting team based upon criteria comprising: whether said selected player is a member of said selecting team, and -84- the rank position of said team within said selected player's rank order; g. running computerized match system computer code to move a player from a first matched team to a subsequently selecting higher ranked team upon said higher ranked team's selection of said player; h. said first matched team submitting an alternate player via said team computerized system interface in communication with said central server via one of said web interfaces to fill the team position vacancy created by said player movement to a higher ranked team; and i. repeating steps d through h for each team in said league until all first tier team positions are filled”, and therefore recites an abstract idea.
More specifically, claim 10 is directed to “Mental Processes” specifically “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)”, “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, specifically “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions” as well as “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”, and “Mathematical Concepts” specifically “mathematical calculations” as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), and in the 2019-01-08 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the examiner acknowledges that Claim 10 recites additional elements yet the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order for the judicial exception to be “integrated into a practical application”, an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim “will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 54 (Jan. 7, 2019). The courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application when “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (Jan. 7, 2019); MPEP § 2106.05(h).
In particular, the independent claim 10 recites additional elements boldened and highlighted above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in view of MPEP 2106.05(g). Further, the remaining additional elements directed to storing data reflect insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B, claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites additional elements boldened and highlighted above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, as evidenced by at least ¶99-100 “As implemented using a computerized system, computer processor effected processes and methods according to an embodiment of the present invention may include the following: A team makes selections via a system web portal or front end comprising a graphic user interface (GUI) displayed via a browser window or custom web application. First, the team owner logs into the system via the GUI using one or more certifications unique to that owner and assigned to that owner within the system. Such certifications may include a username and password but may also include biometric or electronic certifications, such as fingerprint reader, magnetic card reader, RFID reader, chip reader, or the like, as known in the prior art for certifying a user to a computer or computer system. After certification, the owner may then continue to interact with the system GUI to enter information requisite for the system to generate a Match such as the team's ranked list of desired players”.
As a result, claim 10 does not include additional elements, when recited alone or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
With respect to 2A Prong 1, claim 11 recites “providing a computerized match system comprising: one or more web interfaces, each presenting a graphic user interface via a web browser; a central server accessible via said web interfaces over the Internet or over an intranet; said central server comprising one or more computer processors; said central server comprising a web server, a database server and at least one database for storing data provided to the database in database tables; computer code for running a match algorithm on a computer processor of said central server; b. storing a hierarchical tiered salary structure in said database, said hierarchical tiered salary structure including predetermined salaries for each of a plurality of tiers; c. storing a player rank order of teams in said database; d. storing a team initial selection of players for tier in said database; and e. prioritizing a match between a selected player and a selecting team by running match algorithm computer code on said central server, said match algorithm computer code prioritizing matches according to: i. player tier level; ii. whether said selected player is a member of said selecting team, iii. rank position of said selecting team within said selected player's rank order of teams”, and therefore recites an abstract idea.
More specifically, claim 11 is directed to “Mental Processes”, “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, specifically “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions” as well as “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”, and “Mathematical Concept” specifically “mathematical calculation” s as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), and in the 2019-01-08 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 12 contains the same abstract idea with respect to claim 11 and it further limits the abstract idea.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the examiner acknowledges that Claim 11 recites additional elements yet the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order for the judicial exception to be “integrated into a practical application”, an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim “will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 54 (Jan. 7, 2019). The courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application when “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (Jan. 7, 2019); MPEP § 2106.05(h).
In particular, the independent claim 11 recites additional elements boldened and highlighted above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in view of MPEP 2106.05(g). Further, the remaining additional elements directed to storing data reflects insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
With respect to step 2B, claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites additional elements boldened and highlighted above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, as evidenced by at least ¶99-100 “As implemented using a computerized system, computer processor effected processes and methods according to an embodiment of the present invention may include the following: A team makes selections via a system web portal or front end comprising a graphic user interface (GUI) displayed via a browser window or custom web application. First, the team owner logs into the system via the GUI using one or more certifications unique to that owner and assigned to that owner within the system. Such certifications may include a username and password but may also include biometric or electronic certifications, such as fingerprint reader, magnetic card reader, RFID reader, chip reader, or the like, as known in the prior art for certifying a user to a computer or computer system. After certification, the owner may then continue to interact with the system GUI to enter information requisite for the system to generate a Match such as the team's ranked list of desired players”.
As a result, claim 11 does not include additional elements, when recited alone or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Claim 12 does not disclose additional elements, further narrowing the abstract ideas of the independent claims and thus not practically integrated under prong 2A as part of a practical application or under 2B not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MATHEUS R STIVALETTI whose telephone number is (571)272-5758. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached on (571)272-7761. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1822.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 10/28/2025