DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
1. Claims 21-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
2. The rejected claims satisfy the categorical requirements of Step 1. Regarding Step 2A, 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 the abstract ideas of mental process and a method of organizing human activity.
5. Let us begin by considering the requirements of each independent claim, and taking Claim 1 as exemplary.
The claim language recites a competition between players at different locations using sensory equipment that is used to track the players; progress. However, this is an abstract idea because the arranging and conducting a competition between players is as identified by the MPEP an abstract idea under the grouping of method of organizing a human activity (MPEP2106.04 “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions”). Here, a game administrator can arrange a competition, initiate invites, receive acceptances, define parameters of the challenge, and keep track of player’s progress using paper and pencil, without the need for a computer system. Furthermore, the MPEP dictates that when information is collected from various sources, analyzed, and then outputted in a display, such is a mental process as specified in Electric Power Grid, and therefore an abstract idea. Here, information is collected from player sensors, which satisfies the collection step of the Court’s holding. Then the steps of “convert[ing], by the user interface, the first amount of athletic activity performed by the first user to an amount of the common athletic unit, based on the predetermined conversion factors” and “determine whether the challenge has been won by the first user or the second user based on a comparison of the first amount of the common athletic unit performed by the first user and a second amount of athletic activity performed by the second user,” satisfy the analyzing elements of Electric Power Grid since the information is being analyzed to determine a winner. Finally, the limitation of “continuously generate and simultaneously communicate in real-time to the first user at the first location and the second user at the second location, information on the sub-interface indicating whether the challenge has been won by the first user or the second user,” fulfills the last step of the Electric Power Grid holding in displaying an output in accordance with the previous analysis step. Here, the results of the competition are displayed to the player. While the claims also describe the manner in which the information is displayed, such is not sufficient enough to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. Instead such limitations are in accordance with Extra-Solutionary Activity as discussed in Step 2B below.
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. There is no improvement made to computer technology since the claims focus on facilitating a competition and not actual improvements to a technical environment. 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 a generic computer and sensors 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. Here, the claimed machine is simply a generic computer that receives information from wireless sensors and displays a result. While, the claims include sub-interfaces, Examiner perceives such as merely being part of a user interface. User interfaces commonly have sub-menus, and sub-windows for displaying information. Thus, there is not a particular machine that is being claimed.
7. Step 2B asks whether a claimed invention which fails Step 2A contains an inventive concepts, i.e. significantly more. Here, only a generic computer, devices containing sensors and wireless sensors, database (i.e. memory), and a user interface are used for performing the invention. However, sensory equipment is well-known, common, and routine for recording user biometric data. Also, Examiner takes Official Notice that user interfaces, especially those that display sub-interfaces are generic, well understood, and routine as well. This can be seen in graphic user interfaces that open a new menu when an item on a previous menu is selected. While claims further focus on arranging a challenge, players accepting challenges, receiving challenge sensory information, displaying said information, indicating a winner, accepting challenges, determining the scope of a challenge, and where the challenge takes place, all of these limitations do not produce an inventive concept, but instead further the abstract idea. This is supported in 2106.05 of the MPEP which states “an “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.” The MPEP also states that “Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.” Here, the step of gathering data from player sensors is considered pre-solution extra-solution activity, and the displaying of such is considered post-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g): “An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”). For these reasons, the claims lack teaching significantly more than generic computer components, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea that lacks significantly more and thus is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims do not represent a mental process and a method of organizing human activity. Specifically, Applicant contends that the numerous functions and computer elements explicitly directs the claims towards the mind not being capable to performing said functions and elements. However, Applicant is merely programming a generic computer to perform the abstract idea, and then reciting a programmed generic computer as reasons why the claims are patent eligible subject matter. This practice is simply using the computer as a tool for performing the abstract idea. MPEP 2106 states that in situations like these, “merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.” Additionally, Applicant’ amendments to add avatars to demonstrate user progression, however avatars are merely game pieces to signify game progression, which has existed in and out of the computer gaming space for decades including in games such as Monopoly. Additionally, demonstrating user progression in a game using avatars, is also an extension of the displaying a result step of Electric Power Grid, which was mentioned above. Lastly, the fact that the avatar is customized according to user input can merely signify that the user has selected the avatar from a variety of avatars. This is no different to a user, selecting a particular item in Monopoly. Regarding, the practicality of said avatars, the new amendments still don’t improve computer technology as they only further perform the game that is being played. For those reasons, the claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
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