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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 12/08/2025. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below.
Claims 1-12 are now pending.
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 to 12 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 claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The examiner follows the two step-analysis, as described in MPEP 2106 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html). The following diagram is an overview of the steps involved.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1 of the two step-analysis considers whether the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention such as a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The instant invention claims a centralized computing device, a user device and a method in claims 1-12. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad statutory categories of invention. However, claims that fall within one of the four statutory categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas.
Step 2A has been further divided into two prongs as shown in the following diagram.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Under step 2A, the examiner considers whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon. The term “abstract idea” is not interpreted as a layperson might. Instead, the term “abstract idea” is interpreted as described in legal opinions by courts.
According to MPEP 2106.04(a):
the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) 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) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
According to the specification, the present disclosure relates to an interactive online service that allows one of multiple user devices to be selected in a network gaming system (¶ 1).
Representative Claim 1 recites: “1 (Currently amended) A centralized computing device comprising:
at least one processor; and
a memory coupled to the at least one processor and configured to store processor-executable instructions,
wherein the at least one processor is configured, when executing the processor- executable instructions, to:
receive a user request from each of multiple user devices, the user request comprising a user consent to interact with a binary event and a periodicity of user interaction with the binary event, the binary event being cyclic and comprising two equiprobable values, the periodicity of user interaction defining a recurrence interval of the binary event for corresponding one of the multiple user devices;
based on the periodicities of user interaction in the user requests, organize the multiple user devices into at least one group of user devices; and
for each group of user devices of the at least one group of user devices:
(a) receive selection data from each user dev ice in the group of user devices during a predefined time period, the selection data comprising one of the two equiprobable values of the binary event;
(b) check whether the equiprobable value comprised in the selection data from each user device in the group of user devices is the same;
(c) if the equiprobable value comprised in the selection data from each user device in the group of user devices is not the same, select an actual value from the two equiprobable values of the binary event according to a predefined selection algorithm, or receive the actual value from an external source;
(d) send the actual value to each user device in the group of user devices;
(e) based on the selection data and the actual value, determine whether the group of user devices comprises N user devices each of which has sent the selection data comprising the actual value, where N is a natural number; and
(f) if the group of user devices comprises the N user devices and N is more than one, repeat operations (a)-(e) for the N user devices until N is equal to one.”
Representative Claim 5 recites: “5. (Currently amended) A user device comprising:
at least one processor; and
a memory coupled to the at least one processor and configured to store processor-executable instructions, wherein the at least one processor is configured, when executing the processor- executable instructions, to:
(a) send a user request to a centralized computing device, the user request comprising a user consent to interact with a binary event and a periodicity of user interaction with the binary event, the binary event being cyclic and comprising two equiprobable values, the periodicity of user interaction defining a recurrence interval of the binary event for the user device;
(b) during a predefined time period, send selection data to the centralized computing device, the selection data comprising one of the two equiprobable values of the binary event;
(c) receive an actual value from the centralized computing device, the actual value being one of the two equiprobable values of the binary event; and
(d) repeat operations (b) and (c) while the selection data sent in operation (b) comprises the actual value.”
Representative Claim 7 recites “7. (Currently amended) A method for operating a centralized computing device, comprising:
receiving a user request from each of multiple user devices, the user request comprising a user consent to interact with a binary event and a periodicity of user interaction with the binary event, the binary event being cyclic and comprising two equiprobable values, the periodicity of user interaction defining a recurrence interval of the binary event for corresponding one of the multiple user devices;
based on the periodicities of user interaction in the user requests, organizing the multiple user devices into at least one group of user devices; and
for each group of user devices of the at least one group of user devices:
(a) receiving selection data from each user device in the group of user devices during a predefined time period, the selection data comprising one of the two equiprobable values of the binary event;
(b) checking whether the equiprobable value comprised in the selection data from each user device in the group of user devices is the same;
(c) if the equiprobable value comprised in the selection data from each user device in the group of user devices is not the same, selecting an actual value from the two equiprobable values of the binary event according to a predefined selection algorithm. or receiving the actual value from an external source;
(d) sending the actual value to each user device in the group of user devices;
(e) based on the selection data and the actual value, determining whether the group of user devices comprises N user devices each of which has sent the selection data comprising the actual value, where N is a natural number;
(f) if the group of user devices comprises the N user devices and N is more than one, repeating steps (a)-(e) for the N user devices until N is equal to one.”
Representative Claim 11 recites: “11. (Currently amended) A method for operating a user device, comprising:
(a) sending a user request to a centralized computing device, the user request comprising a user consent to interact with a binary event and a periodicity of user interaction with the binary event, the binary event being cyclic and comprising two equiprobable values;
(b) during a predefined time period, sending selection data to the centralized computing device, the selection data comprising one of the two equiprobable values of the binary event, the periodicity of user interaction defining a recurrence interval of the binary event for the user device;
(c) receiving an actual value from the centralized computing device, the actual value being one of the two equiprobable values of the binary event: and
(d) repeating steps (b) and (c) while the selection data sent in step (b) comprises the actual value.”
The underlined portions of representative claims 1, 5, 7 and 11 generally encompass the abstract idea. The dependent claims further define the abstract idea by introducing blockhain technology, comparisons, etc. . The abstract idea may be viewed, for example, as:
Real-time monitoring of an electric power grid, as in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom (Fed. Cir. 2016);
An interface providing user display access of customized information, as in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Recording, transmitting and administering digital images, as in TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC (Fed. Cir. 2016); and
use of machine learning in a given environment as discussed in Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2025); and/or
a method of organizing human activities as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank.
The claimed abstract idea reproduced above is effectively an algorithm or set of instructions directed to prioritizing and selecting devices based on one of two equiprobable values of a binary event. Such steps amount to observation, judgment, and collection of information that could be carried out mentally or with the use of pen and paper. In Electric Power Group, the Federal Circuit found that merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas. The claims at issue were directed to gathering information to identify problems in an electric grid and to output that information to a user. The court found that such steps constitute an abstract idea based upon several previous court decisions, including Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., Content Extraction &Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Digitech Image Techs. LLC v. Elecs. For Imaging, Inc., CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc. The Court also relied upon TLI Communications, Digitech, Bancorp Servs. LLC v. Sun Life, among others, to state that analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds are essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.
The abstract idea in the present case is similar in that it gathers information devices and makes a selection based upon values of a binary event. There is no asserted inventive concept in the improvement of computers as tools, but instead upon certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. Such a finding suggests that the decisions in Enfish v. Microsoft, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, and McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America do not apply here. Therefore, under Step 2A prong 2, the claims are directed to the judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2B
Finally, under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether 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.
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements recite at least one processor, and a memory coupled to the at least one processor, user devices, and a centralized computing device. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These features do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they encompass generic computer implementation (e.g., a processor or a memory) as well as other well-understood, routine and conventional devices. These additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and storing data, (ii) automating mental tasks and (iii) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Additionally, the Supreme Court in Alice found that claim recitations of a “data processing system” with a “communications controller” and “data storage unit” are purely functional and generic. The Court further stated, “Put another way, the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance...The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea.” The Court concluded that “[b]ecause petitioner's system and media claims add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea, we hold that they too are patent ineligible under §101.” The same conclusion is reached with respect to the claims of the instant invention. Therefore, the claim(s) 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, et al., 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/08/2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC § 102, have been fully considered and are found persuasive. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Claims 1-12 are examined above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUNA-KAY HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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.
/S.N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715 /DAVID L LEWIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715