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 .
Claim Status
After the amendments filed 03/23/2026, claims 1-20 remain pending, of which 1-8, 10, 12-16, and 20 were amended.
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 1-20 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. The claims are directed to at least one of abstract idea groupings, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines (Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity). Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
More specifically, regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a system and/or process, which is are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A-1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 recites the following, with the abstract ideas highlighted in bold, including an indication as to the abstract idea grouping(s) to which the indicated limitations belong to, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines. Independent claims 8 and 16, having substantially similar features, were also analyzed and to which the following conclusion is also applicable:
1. A special purpose gaming machine comprising:
an electronic display system displaying a matrix of first symbol locations in a first display area and a plurality of reels in a second display area separate from the first display area and each of the plurality of reels including a plurality of second symbol locations containing a game symbol from a game symbol set which includes numerical symbols with single digit numbers including "0" and double-digit numbers including "00", and blank symbols (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
a player input device; and
a memory storing a first data structure defining the matrix of first symbol locations and a second data structure defining reel strips for the plurality of reels, the second data structure configured to enable concatenation of numerical symbols displayed on the plurality of reels to form a numerical prize value; and
a graphics processor operatively coupled to the electronic display system; and
a central processing unit (CPU) operatively coupled to the graphics processor the memory, and the player input device, the CPU having the capacity to, in response to an input from the player input device (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity), direct the graphics processor to:
cause the display system to populate the matrix of first symbol locations with randomly selected symbols from the first data structure (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity); and
responsive to a designated triggering pattern appearing in the matrix, cause at least two reels of the plurality of reels to spin and stop to display based on the second data structure a numerical value defined by concatenating the numerical symbols from the game symbol set aligned along a payline to form the numerical prize value, ignoring any blank symbols, , the displayed numerical value comprising at least a portion of a randomly selected game outcome presented in the second display area, wherein to cause the at least two reels to spin and stop, the CPU further having the capacity to direct the graphics processor to cause, while the at least two reels are spinning, a first reel of the at least two reels to stop while a second reel of the at least two reels continues spinning before also stopping so as to cause anticipation by a player utilizing the player input device (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity).
The limitations in claim 1 (as well as claim(s) 8 and 16) recite an abstract idea included in the groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, connected to technology only through application thereof using generic computing elements (e.g., an electronic display system, a player input device, at least one electronic processor, a graphics processor etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity.
According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines:
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include:
1. Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices (including hedging (i.e., wagering), insurance, mitigating risk);
2. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
3. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The interaction encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping.
Specifically, the instant claims include functions/limitations, as highlighted in the independent claim above, that constitute at least:
A. In light of applicant' s specification (See Spec ¶36, wherein a player input comprises placement of a wager to begin gameplay), some limitations identified above are interpreted as placement of a wager during a wagering game (e.g., “in response to an input from the player input device”). Wagering, which is a form of hedging, is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices. These limitations are interpreted as at least Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims.
B. Formation of a gambling contract (i.e., by a player placing a wager the player is entering into a contract with a game operator), which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Commercial or Legal Interactions. These limitations are interpreted as at least Commercial or Legal Interactions insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the Commercial or Legal Interactions while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims; and/or
C. Following rules and/or instructions, such as including the functions related to the playing of a game, which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People. These sets of rules are interpreted as at least certain methods of organized human activity insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing or following the set of rules or instructions concerning a game while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in the claims.
Regarding dependent claims 2-7, 9-15 and 17-20:
Each claim is dependent either directly or indirectly from the independent claim identified above and includes all the limitations of said independent claim. Therefore, each dependent claim recites the same abstract idea as identified above. Each of the dependent claim further describes additional aspects of the abstract idea, i.e., additional aspects to the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. For example, some dependent claims merely provide additional Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity to be performed and/or additional insignificant extra-solution activity, without anything more significant to establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A-2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-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) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1-20 clearly do not improve the functioning of a computer, as they only incorporate generic computing elements, do not effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Similarly, there is no improvement to a technical field. In addition the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way. The claimed invention does not suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer components are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of “an electronic display system, a player input device, at least one electronic processor, a graphics processor”, etc. used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility. These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer,’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Further, the claims would require structure that is beyond generic, such as structure that can be interpreted analogous to a general-purpose structure and general purpose computing elements in that they represent well-understood, routine, conventional elements that do not add significantly more to the claims. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. The elements of a display system, a memory, a player input device, and at least one electronic processor are well-known conventional devices used to electronically implement a game as evidence by U.S. 2004/0204228, which discloses that a conventional gaming machine comprises a display system, a memory, a player input device and at least one electronic processor to control the overall operation of the gaming machine (¶58). Further, a graphics processor is a well-known conventional device used to electronically implement a game as evidence by U.S. 2011/0130199, which discloses that a conventional gaming machine comprises a graphics processor to control the overall operation of the gaming machine (¶32). See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The dependent claims do not add “significantly more” for at least the same reasons as directed to their respective independent claims, at least based on the position, as discussed above, that each of the dependent claims merely provide additional limitations to further expand the abstract idea of the independent claims, without adding anything which would establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Consequently, consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ang et al (U.S. 2018/0130285) in view of Meyer (U.S. 2018/0276941) and Watkins et al (U.S. 2014/0038689).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 16, Ang discloses:
a special purpose gaming machine (¶66, gaming device 10) comprising:
an electronic display system (¶5, ¶12, ¶66, Fig. 1B, each gaming device 10 includes displays 16 and 18) displaying a matrix of first symbol locations in a first display area (¶114, Fig. 3B, primary game display of symbol matrix 301 comprising reels 54a-54d) and a plurality of reels (¶95-96, a secondary game may be triggered based on a base game outcome, wherein the secondary game is a similar game to the base game, the examiner interprets a secondary game displaying symbol matrix 301 comprising reels 54a-54d as the plurality of reels) and each of the plurality of reels including a plurality of second symbol locations containing a game symbol from a game symbol set which includes numerical symbols with single digit numbers including "0" and double-digit numbers including "00" (¶130, ¶133, Fig. 11, the reels 54a-54c include numerical symbols including single and double digit numbers and including “0” and “00”);
a player input device (¶87-90, gaming device 10 includes a plurality of input devices); and
a memory storing a first data structure defining the matrix of first symbol locations and a second data structure defining reel strips for the plurality of reels, the second data structure configured to enable concatenation of numerical symbols displayed on the plurality of reels to form a numerical prize value (¶5-7, a memory which stores digital reel strips for the plurality of reels of the gaming device);
a graphics processor operatively coupled to the electronic display system (¶68, graphics processor 290); and
a central processing unit (CPU) operatively coupled to the graphics processor the memory, and the player input device (¶68, ¶70-73, Fig. 2A, gaming device 10 is controlled by a processor 220), the CPU having the capacity to, in response to an input from the player input device, direct the graphics processor to:
cause the display system to populate the matrix of first symbol locations with randomly selected symbols from the first data structure (¶64, ¶85-87, player engages a play button causing the game to be activated and a display of game results to be randomly generated and displayed) and
responsive to a designated triggering pattern appearing in the matrix (¶95-96, a designated outcome which results in triggering a secondary game), cause at least two reels of the plurality of reels to spin and stop to display based on the second data structure a numerical value defined by concatenating the numerical symbols from the game symbol set aligned along a payline to form the numerical prize value, ignoring any blank symbols, the displayed numerical value comprising at least a portion of a randomly selected game outcome presented in the second display area (¶95-96, ¶113, ¶122, ¶135 Fig. 11-12A, during a triggered secondary game each of the reels are spun and an award is provided to the player based on concatenating the numerical symbols displayed, wherein paylines associated with a blank symbol are ignored (e.g., Fig. 12A which provides an award for payline 52c and ignores payline 52b).
However, Ang does not specifically disclose that:
the plurality of reels are located in a second display area separate from the first display area; or
wherein to cause the at least two reels to spin and stop, the CPU further having the capacity to direct the graphics processor to cause, while the at least two reels are spinning, a first reel of the at least two reels to stop while a second reel of the at least two reels continues spinning before also stopping so as to cause anticipation by a player utilizing the player input device.
Meyer teaches:
a gaming machine (¶82, Fig. 2, gaming machine 10) comprising a matrix of first symbol locations (¶99, ¶125, Fig. 8, third reels 54c used to conduct the base game), wherein a plurality of reels which are located in a second display area separate from the first display area and are spun responsive to a designated triggering pattern appearing in a base game (¶99, ¶126, Fig. 9, based on a triggering outcome occurring on third reels 54c in the base game feature game reels 54b, which are displayed separate from the third reels 54c, are spun to produce an additional outcome).
Further, Watkins teaches:
A gaming machine (¶24, Fig. 1, gaming machine 100), comprising a matrix of symbol locations (Fig. 5), wherein the matrix includes reels which are spun and stopped to display randomly selected symbols (¶51), wherein the reels are stopped such that a first reel of the at least two reels to stop while a second reel of the at least two reels continues spinning before also stopping (¶49, the reels may be brought to a stop separately so that some symbols are shown while others remain spinning).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to display the numerical secondary, game as taught by Ang, on the separate secondary game display area, as taught by Meyer, by separately stopping the spinning reels, as taught by Watkins, in order to create a more distinct bonus feature, thereby enhancing visual clarity between the base game and secondary game and increasing player anticipation and enjoyment which would lead to increased game play and revenues for game operators.
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 17, Ang discloses that which is discussed above. Ang further discloses that:
each second symbol locations of each reel contains a positive single digit number, a positive double digit number, "0," "00," or a non-numerical symbol comprising a blank symbol (Fig. 11).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 18, Ang discloses that which is discussed above. However, Ang does not specifically disclose that:
responsive to the designated triggering pattern, cause the at least two reels to change from a first state in which they are shown to be concealed, and a second state in which they are shown to be active and displaying symbols.
Meyer teaches:
a gaming machine (¶82, Fig. 2, gaming machine 10) comprising a matrix of first symbol locations (¶99, ¶125, Fig. 8, third reels 54c used to conduct the base game), wherein responsive to the designated triggering pattern, cause the at least two reels to change from a first state in which they are shown to be concealed, and a second state in which they are shown to be active and displaying symbols (¶106, the feature game is displayed in response to a bonus triggering event occurring in the base game (i.e., the feature game is concealed until triggered by the base game outcome)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to display the numerical secondary, game as taught by Ang, on the separate secondary game display area in response to a base game triggering event, as taught by Meyer, in order to create a more distinct bonus feature, thereby enhancing visual clarity between the base game and secondary game and thus increase player anticipation and enjoyment which would lead to increased game play and revenues for game operators.
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 19, Ang discloses that which is discussed above. However, Ang does not specifically disclose that:
the at least one electronic processor is further operable to, responsive to the designated triggering pattern, select the at least two of the plurality of reels that spin and stop to be reels that are aligned with two or more symbols containing the triggering pattern.
Meyer teaches:
a gaming machine (¶82, Fig. 2, gaming machine 10), wherein responsive to the designated triggering pattern, select the at least two of the plurality of reels that spin and stop to be reels that are aligned with two or more symbols containing the triggering pattern (Fig. 13, wherein the reels of the feature game 54a are aligned with the reels of the base game 54c, wherein the base game contains the triggering pattern).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to display the numerical secondary, game as taught by Ang, on the separate secondary game display area in response to a base game triggering event, as taught by Meyer, in order to create a more distinct bonus feature, thereby enhancing visual clarity between the base game and secondary game and thus increase player anticipation and enjoyment which would lead to increased game play and revenues for game operators.
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Ang discloses that which is discussed above. However, Ang does not specifically disclose that:
in response to a spin result of the reels containing only ‘0’ or ‘00’ values, causing the remaining reels to spin and stop to display a numerical value defined by concatenating the numerical symbols from the game symbol set aligned along the payline, the displayed numerical value comprising at least a portion of a randomly selected game outcome.
Meyer teaches:
a gaming machine (¶82, Fig. 2, gaming machine 10), wherein reels containing predetermined symbols are caused to be held and remaining reels containing non-predetermined symbols are caused to spin and stop (¶123, reels which contain symbols other than index symbols are re-spun).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to re-spin non-winning symbols, such as the “0” and “00” symbols taught by Ang, in a manner such as taught by Meyer, in order to thus increase player anticipation and enjoyment which would lead to increased game play and revenues for game operators.
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, Ang discloses that which is discussed above. However, Ang does not specifically disclose that:
the at least one electronic processor is further operable to: (a) perform a prize amount random selection to identify an outcome prize amount; and (b) perform an outcome sequence random selection to identify an outcome sequence from a group of outcome sequences each providing the identified outcome prize amount.
Meyer teaches:
a gaming machine (¶82, Fig. 2, gaming machine 10), which performs a prize amount random selection to identify an outcome prize amount (¶87, ¶112, random number generation used to identify a game outcome); and (b) perform an outcome sequence random selection to identify an outcome sequence from a group of outcome sequences each providing the identified outcome prize amount (¶87, ¶112, the generated random number is used to select an outcome from a pool of outcomes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the well-known random outcome selection as taught by Meyer into the gaming system as taught by Ang in order to provide a mechanism by which game operators can control player return values and award frequency.
Regarding claim 15, Ang discloses that which is discussed above. However, Ang does not specifically disclose that:
(a) under control of the processing system, causing the display system to show each of the plurality of reels spin and then come to a stop to display a first group of symbols from the game symbol set aligned along the payline, the first group of symbols including "0"; and (b) under control of the processing system, causing a reel that does not display "0" in the first group of symbols from the game symbol set to re-spin and then come to a stop to display the numerical value defined by concatenating the numerical symbols from the game symbol set aligned along the payline.
Meyer teaches:
a gaming machine (¶82, Fig. 2, gaming machine 10), wherein reels containing predetermined symbols are caused to be held and remaining reels containing non-predetermined symbols are caused to spin and stop (¶123, reels which contain symbols other than index symbols are re-spun).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to re-spin symbols other than the “0” and “00” symbols taught by Ang, in a manner such as taught by Meyer, in order to thus increase player anticipation and enjoyment which would lead to increased game play and revenues for game operators.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims recite wagering and the Office Action improperly imported wagering into the claims from the specification (See Arguments, pgs. 8-9). The examiner must respectfully disagree. During examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The specification explicitly states that a player input entered through the player input device to initiate a game round is placement of a wager (See Specification, ¶36). Therefore, interpretating the claimed “input from the player input device” to “populate the matrix” and “award a prize value” as the placement of a wager is entirely consistent with the applicant’s own expressed definition. Further, even if the explicit term “wagering” is absent, the structural boundaries of the claims requiring the generation of randomly selected symbols, calculation of a numerical prize value, and determination of a randomly selected game outcome, define the essential mechanics of an intercave game of chance. Under step 2A, Prong 1, games of chance and the rules of managing them fall squarely in the category of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The categorization of the claims as an abstract idea is based on the specific language of the claims when read in light of the specification, not on an improper importation of limitations from the specification.
Applicant argues that the instant claims are eligible because they provide a technical solution to a technical problem involving controlling reel spin and stop timing (See Remarks, pg. 8). The examiner must respectfully disagree. To establish an improvement to computer functionality or user-interface technology, the disclosure must provide a technical explanation as to how the invention improves operation of the computing system itself (e.g., how the invention improves the efficiency, speed, rendering capabilities, etc.). The specification as filed, fails to establish any such technological improvements and the claims do not recite any such improvements. For example, the specification nor the claims recite an improved graphics processor that renders frames faster or a CPU that executes instructions more efficiently. Rather, the claims recite a standard CPU directing a standard graphics processor to execute a specific sequence of visual displays. Controlling the reels to stop at different times is merely the automation of a non-technical game rule, specifically staggering the visual presentation of data, using convention processing hardware operating routinely, which does not modify the technological function of the computer hardware.
Applicant argues that the sequential reel stopping features are integrated into a practical application because they “build anticipation” (See Remarks, pg. 9). The examiner must respectfully disagree. An architectural change to a game presentation that is designed purely to elicit a human emotional response does not constitute integration into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2. The claim itself explicitly states that the sequential stopping limitation is performed “so as to cause anticipation by a player”. Applicant may have an improved abstract idea that provides greater anticipation by a player. But the abstract idea does not solve a technical problem. And a new abstract idea, regardless of how great it is, is still an abstract idea. Abstract ideas are not patent-eligible without “significantly more.” In this case, Applicant has merely implemented an abstract idea using a generic computer. This is not considered to be “significantly more” than the abstract idea since the Supreme Court’s Alice decision was handed down.
Applicant appears to argue that there is not complete preemption, and therefore, the claims are eligible (See Remarks, pg. 10). This argument is not persuasive because preemption is not a standalone test for determining eligibility...rather questions of preemption are inherent in and resolved by the two-part framework of the Alice/Mayo test Steps 2A and 2B (See MPEP 2106.04, I. Judicial Exception). The instant claims, when analyzed in light of the framework of the Alice/Mayo test, were found to be directed to an abstract idea without any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see Remarks, filed 03/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a newly found prior reference found in light of newly added limitations to the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON PINHEIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-1350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00A-4:30P ET.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/Jason Pinheiro/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights