WAGERING ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING

Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. DETAILED ACTION This communication is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 22 July 2026. Claim 2 has been amended. Claims 2-12 are pending. The rejection of claims 2-12 under 35 USC § 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter is maintained. The rejections are as stated below. 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 2-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more as discussed in the previous office action mailed on 29 April 2026. Further: Applicant amended the claim to recite, wherein the relational data structure is configured to be updated in real time to reflect changes in tax treaties or jurisdictional rules. As mentioned previously, these limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers steps directed to organizing human activity, namely a fundamental economic practice of reporting and reconciling taxable events and liabilities based on income generated by gambling. Certain methods of organizing human activity, including a fundamental economic practice, represent an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). In addition to raising the abstract recitation of “‘organizing human activity,’ the claims recite “mental processes”. Claim 2 includes steps that reasonably can be performed by a human (pen and paper). For example, by using accounting evaluation techniques, an accountant or bookkeeper can perform the steps recited above in claim 2: “compute that a player has won an amount above a threshold amount in which the amount won is taxable at two different tax rates in at least two respective ones of the plurality of horizontally-related tax jurisdictions,” “request ... the player to provide tax related identification information,” “request ... the player’s .. . signature on at least one tax- related paperwork,” “receive … the tax-related identification information and the player’s... signature,” and “withhold ... the taxable amount from the amount won by the player.”, “Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” also constitute an abstract idea. The above recitations, and the claim as a whole, recite an abstract idea involving mental processes. Therefore, exemplary independent claim 2 recites limitations that fall under the category of abstract ideas related to “certain methods of organizing human activity” and/or “mental processes”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). Accordingly, independent claim 2 recites an abstract idea. Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The recited judicial exception may be integrated into a practical application by identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitation of at least one processor, a memory of a computer gaming system, a communication network, a remote mobile computing device the use of electronic signature and a relational data structure to perform the steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of processing data (see Applicant’s specification ¶¶ 0055-0061). These generic computer limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Also, these limitations are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim is directed to the abstract idea. Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a server (using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the server at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. The analysis above applies to the statutory category of invention of claim 2. Furthermore, dependent claims 3-12 do not add limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Claims 3-12 recite that the payout amount comprises an aggregate of wins and losses over a period of time, the tax- related identification information comprises a social security number or a taxpayer identification number, receiving a request by the player to remain anonymous, withholding taxes from the taxable amount at a highest applicable rate, the taxes that are withheld are stored in an escrow account that fluctuate throughout a tax period, computing, at an end of the tax period, a total amount that remains in the escrow account, transmitting in real time as the player games, a report of a player's win/loss information, the payout amount is taxable in at least one of the plurality of horizontally- related tax jurisdictions and nontaxable in at least one of the plurality of horizontally related tax and jurisdictions and receiving a query about a tax liability of the player. These limitations further define the abstract idea. Therefore, they are rejected under the same rational of claim 2 above. dependent claims 3-12, add the additional elements (a communication network, a remote mobile computing device), which is addressed above under integration to a practical application and inventive concept. The additional elements are simply steps performed by a generic computer. The claim merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a processor and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic processor to merely carry out the abstract idea itself. The dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claims. Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, claims 2-12 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis. Response to Arguments Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 2-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more. Examiner incorporates herein the response to arguments from the previous office actions. The proposed amendments do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Applicant amended the claims to include the above-mentioned steps. The same updated analysis based on the new 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) applies to the newly added claimed limitations as discussed above and in the previous office action rejections. The instant claims do not attempt to solve an unconventional technological solution but rather use the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea. The horizontally related tax jurisdictions, the allocation specification of tax treaties and the relational data structure limitations are simply the vehicle for storing and applying those tax rules. They do not change the character of the idea; it merely describes the content of the rules being applied Examiner respectfully disagrees. As analyzed in the rejection above, the claim does not recite any non-conventional technical mechanism that enables rules modification. It simply receives human readable instructions into memory (insignificant extra-solution activity), adding the human ability to modify rules does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The focus of the claimed invention is not on any improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality. Rather, they are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). The claims here do not recite an improvement in computers. The claims do not improve the functioning of the computer or solve any technological problem. There is no specific technical improvement to the data structure that improves storage efficiency or retrieval speed, computer functionality, or any technical field beyond the abstract goal of applying multiple jurisdictional tax rules. Rather, the claim simply “includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” and “does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use”. Here, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem/internet-centric problem. As found by the courts “In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly . . ..” SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Content Extraction, 2013 WL 3964909, at *12 (“the mere use of a computer to more quickly and efficiently . . . accomplish a given task does not create meaningful limitation on an otherwise abstract and wide-ranging concept”). A claim may be found to be eligible if it integrates a judicial exception into a practical application as cited by Applicant. However, examiner notes that "claiming the improved efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not provide an inventive concept (see MPEP §2106.05(f)(2).) Claiming improved data processing efficiency is inherent with applying any improvement to the judicial exception itself on a computer does not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. Under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to 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 exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.-see MPEP 2106.05(f). According to 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidelines (2019 PEG), limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include: • Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a) • Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition - see Vanda Memo • Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b) • Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing -see MPEP 2106.05(c) • Applying or using 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(e). In the instant case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, because none of the above criteria is met. The amended limitations of the claims do not result in computer functionality improvement or technical/technology improvement when the underlying abstract idea is implemented using technology. All the features in the Applicant’s claims can at best be considered an improvement in the abstract idea. The advantages over conventional systems are directed towards improving the abstract idea itself. Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claims as a whole are not integrated into a practical application. The claims as a whole do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are generic computer components claimed to perform their basic functions. The processor is a general-purpose processor that performs general-purpose functions. The use of a processor, memory, communications network, remote mobile device and electronic signature does not remove the claim from the abstract idea. Storing relationships among tax jurisdictions and treaties in a relational data structure and querying it based on real-time activity data is ordinary database use. Relational databases and real-time updates are well-understood and conventional activities. Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply a generic recitation of a computer processor performing its generic computer functions. Accordingly, claims are ineligible. For these reasons the rejection under 35 USC § 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter set forth in this office action is maintained. Conclusion 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 date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hani Kazimi whose telephone number is (571) 272-6745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM. 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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on (571) 270-1836. 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. Respectfully Submitted /HANI M KAZIMI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691