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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “The operative technical feature of the claims is "applying digital contents of the one or more gifts to be displayed to a display screen of the second terminal by superimposing the purchased digital contents over a background image." This is not a business practice. It is an image-processing and rendering operation governing how a stadium-scale display is composited in real time.” The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner disagrees. The cited portion supports the Examiner’s assertions that the claims are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity.
The claims recited a fan purchasing a gift with the specific details of the gift to be displayed on a screen in a stadium. Again, this falls squarely into the category of certain methods of organizing human activity.
Applicant further argues, “The claims are eligible according to Step 2A, Prong 2 of the 2-part test on subject matter eligibility (MPEP 2106.04). Even if the claims are held to recite an abstract idea, they also integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.” The Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claims, while they recited additional elements, the additional elements do not result in any type of practical application. Appicant has not asserted any logic as to why the claims recite a practical application. The claims do not recite an improvement to the additional elements, nor do they provide any type of transformation. Frankly, when one looks at all if the ways a claim can show a practical application, the claims as recited do not recite any. Applicant asserts:
"Superimposing" is a technical image-processing operation, not a business
limitation.
"Mirroring output of the second terminal" describes a specific visual
distribution architecture.
"Predetermined time during the game" is not a business rule; it ensures
synchronization with broadcast hardware
Again, these are not examples of a practical application.
Applicant further argues that the claims are similar to that of DDR in that they are rooted in technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the computer network (or other technological) realm. The Examiner disagrees. The DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com Federal Circuit decision states, "But these claims stand apart because they do not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet. Instead, the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks."-(see pg. 20).
Applicant's claims seek to address a problem that existed and continues to exist outside of the realm of the technology associated with the additionally recited elements. The proposed solution is one that could have been implemented directly by a human performing analogous functions by hand and/or with the assistance of a general-purpose computer applied to facilitate the functions at a high level of generality or with the assistance of additional elements performing well-known, conventional functions. In Applicant's claims, the central processor could be substituted with a human user and the underlying invention would result in a similar solution to the problem at hand. The rejected claims do not adhere to the same fact pattern seen in the DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com decision. In the DDR Holdings decision, the manner in which the network itself operated was changed to improve network operations. There is no actual improvement made to the operations or physical structure of the additional elements claimed in the instant application
Applicant further argues that the claims are similar to those in Enfish, LLC, Microsoft Corp., No. 2015-1244 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016). The Examiner disagrees. The claims in Enfish were determined to be focused on the specific improvement in computer capabilities. In the instant Application there is no improvement to a computer. Even if one looked at the idea of an improvement to the software arts, there is still no comparison, as Applicant’s invention does not provide an improvement to software technology so much as it adds a general-purpose computer to human activities and an idea of itself. Moreover, the focus of Applicant’s claims is not on an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
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 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter 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.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite:
receiving, by the fan, a request for issuing gift points to the fan and storing the gift points in association with a fan identifier of the fan
receiving, by the fan, a gift purchase request using the points associated with the fan identifier, the gift being for display request specifying a team or a player of the team;
determining whether the gift purchase request is made within a predetermined time period during the game; and
when the gift purchase request is made within the predetermined time period, transmitting gift information regarding one or more purchased gifts, viewed by fans in the stadium to which output is mirrored; thereby applying digital contents of the one or more purchased gifts over a background image the one or more gifts to be displayed;
The claims falls into the abstract idea groupings (b) 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)**
The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than recited, apparatus, first and second terminal, display screen, images, large-size display, transmitting information regarding one or more purchased digital gifts to a second terminal connected to a large-sized stadium display program, computer, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being marketing or sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 2
The recited limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements, apparatus, first and second terminal, display screen, images, large-size display, program, applying contents onto a display screen of the second terminal by superimposing the digital contents over a background image the one or more gifts to be displayed, computer. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
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);
- (first and second terminal, display screen, images, large-size display, program, digital content, storage unit, computer)
mere data gathering/post solution activity in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, -(applying contents onto a display screen of the second terminal by superimposing the digital contents over a background image the one or more gifts to be displayed);
generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, -(stadium)
The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Integration into a practical application requires the additional element(s) 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. This is not the case in the instant application. Further, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than: mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B
Eligibility requires that the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. As discussed above, this is where the instant application falls short. The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already
presented (that is, they further limit the organizing of human activities at step 2A —
Prong One without adding any new additional elements other than those already
analyzed above with respect to the independent claims at 2A — Prong Two; While claim 2 describes a smartphone; 5-a stadium and 6-web browser a full screen display, these additional elements do not remedy the deficiencies.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment
and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims without
adding any new additional elements. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly
more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
The claims are not rejected by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONYA S JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)270-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30, First Fridays Off.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/TONYA JOSEPH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights