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 .
Preliminary Amendment
After the amendments filed 02/10/2026, claims 17 and 18 were cancelled, therefore, claims 1-13, 15-16, and 19-20 remain pending, of which 1-9, 15, 19, 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 1-13, 15-16, and 19-20 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 19 and 20, having substantially similar features, were also analyzed and to which the following conclusion is also applicable:
1. A non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions that when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to perform operations for rendering a multidimensional map, the operations comprising:
storing, in a memory, the multidimensional map represented as a multidimensional arrangement of tiles, each tile associated with a location within the multidimensional map;
causing a display of the multidimensional arrangement of tiles on an electronic screen (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
receiving, via an input device, a signal associated with a random directionality outcome including a combination of a plurality of direction components (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
identifying a current tile associated with a current character location on the multidimensional map (Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
using the current character location and the combination of the plurality of direction components to compute a series of translations for applying to the current character location to determine a destination tile for a new character location on the multidimensional map (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes);
selecting a subset of tiles of the multidimensional arrangement of tiles, the subset including at least the current tile for the current character location and the destination tile for the new character location (Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity); and
rendering a display of only the subset of tiles of the multidimensional arrangement of tiles of the multidimensional map on the electronic screen in a manner reflecting movement of the character from the current tile to the destination tile, thereby rendering fewer tiles than the display of the multidimensional arrangement of tiles of the multidimensional map character location to a new character location (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity).
The limitations in claim 1 (as well as claim(s) 19 and 20) recite an abstract idea included in the groupings of Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, connected to technology only through application thereof using generic computing elements (e.g., a non-transitory computer readable medium, at least one processor, a display, an input device, etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity.
According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines:
Mental Processes include concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion); and
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. Wagering: For example, in light of applicant’s specification the limitation “receiving, via an input device, a signal associated with a random directionality outcome including a combination of a plurality of direction components” is interpreted as placement of a wager during a wagering game (See Specification ¶143, ¶191, ¶193, wherein receiving a signal associated with a random directionality outcome includes receiving a signal including at least an wager or assurance and ¶58, and wherein an assurance is also defined as a wager). Wagering is a form of hedging, which 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.
D. Concepts performed in the human mind (e.g., “identifying a current tile associated with a current character location on the multidimensional map”), which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Mental Processes. These limitations are interpreted as at least Mental Processes insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the concepts in the human mind, 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 2-13 and 15-16:
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 Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. For example, some dependent claims merely provide additional Mental Processes and/or 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 “a non-transitory computer readable medium, at least one processor, a display”, 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.
In addition to the abstract ideas indicated above, the claims include additional elements, such as:
“storing, in a memory, the multidimensional map represented as a multidimensional arrangement of tiles, each tile associated with a location within the multidimensional map”.
As claimed, these additional elements are viewed as mere data gathering and manipulation, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and thus does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
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 non-transitory computer readable medium, at least one processor and a display 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 elements such as a non-transitory computer readable medium, a processor, an input device, and a display to control the overall operation of the gaming machine (¶58). 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 02/10/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims, as currently amended, no longer are directed to an abstract idea because the amendments removed the elements which were identified as constituting abstract ideas (See Remarks, pg. 9). The examiner must respectfully disagree. An abstract idea does not require explicit, narrow terminology to remain an exception. The underlying operational steps of the instant claims still structurally define an automated version of a board game format (i.e., tracking a character’s position across a grid matrix and updating its layout based on a randomized multi-variable parameter). Such an automation of a board game format, wherein coordinate metrics are translated sequentially to simulate character movements on a board layout, falls squarely within the category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Applicant argues that the claims are now directed to a specific patent-eligible “computer-implemented architecture for rendering movement across a multidimensional tiled map” that includes a data structure for a multidimensional arrangement of tiles, a translation processes, a selection process, and a selective rendering process (See Remarks, pg. 9). The examiner must respectfully disagree. The recited “architecture” consists entirely of high-level functional statements of abstract computer functions using conventional programming steps and conventional computer components. Merely mapping basic functional elements into a sequential layout loop does not create a specialized, patent-eligible software architecture, but rather, it simply automates the abstract idea on a generic computer terminal.
Applicant argues that the instant claims are drawn to a specific process for rendering a multidimensional map, which constitutes a specific technological improvement to computer functionality (See Remarks, pg. 9). The examiner must respectfully disagree. Computing relative spatial translations based on directional vectors is an arithmetic manipulation of grid coordinates. Restricting a view space to a localized “subset” of tiles surrounding the destination point describes an optimized software display preference, which alters what graphic information is presented to the user, rather than modifying the processing capabilities of the computer terminal display itself.
Applicant argues that the instant claims recite a specific technical process, not an abstract idea (See Remarks, pgs. 9-10). The examiner must respectfully disagree. The limitations of the instant claims, when viewed individually or as an ordered combination, remain directed to an abstract idea. Each identified limitation relies entirely on generic computer components (e.g., memory, electronic screen, input device, etc.) performing their standard expected routines to carry out data presentation. Under established case law, limiting an abstract idea to a generic computing environment does not provide an underlying technological process, rather, it is merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract operations.
Applicant argues that the claimed features cannot be preformed in the human mind, and thus they represent technical processes not abstract ideas (See Remarks, pg. 10). The examiner must respectfully disagree. A claimed process is not rendered patent-eligible simply because it is too complex to be fully executed mentally or with pen and paper. The logic used to calculate coordinate movements on a matric (e.g., computing a series of translations to determine a destination position) remains a purely abstract concept regardless of the scale of the grid layout. Automating a judicial exception on a generic electronic display using standard software rending, without any additional elements which constitute “significantly more”, does not the change the underlying abstract idea into a patent eligible process.
Applicant argues that features which were previously used to support the abstract idea characterization (e.g., receiving a request to generate a random directionality indicator), which were interpreted as placement of a wager during a game, are no longer recited and thus the claims are eligible. The examiner must respectfully disagree. As noted in the updated rejection above, the claims still require “receiving, via an input device, a signal associated with a random directionality outcome including a combination of a plurality of direction components”. In light of applicant’s specification, which specifically defines a multidimensional map input to include “one or more of a multidimensional map parameter, a multidimensional map element, or a wager.”, the examiner has broadly and reasonably interpreted the claim limitation of receiving a signal associated with a random directionality outcome to include a wager.
Applicant argues that the instant claims provide additional elements which constitute an improvement to the technical field of interactive sessions with users in multidimensional environments (See Remarks, pgs. 10-12). Specifically, applicant argues that the instant claims recite:
1. Storing a multidimensional arrangement of tiles representing a map. Applicant argues that this limitation is analogous to the claims found eligible in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. Applicant’s analogy to Enfish is not found persuasive. In Enfish, the claims recited an entirely non-conventional, self-referential table configuration that provided a technological improvement regarding how database engines logically modeled and prioritized memory storage. In contrast, the claimed storing of a “multidimensional arrangement of tiles” is merely a standard logical dta matrix mapping of an array of cells trach special values. Utilizing a conventional array layout to structure an interactive board is a standard database selection method, which does not constitute an improvement to computer data storage functionality itself.
2. Computing a series of translations from a plurality of direction components. Applicant argues that this limitation constitutes a specific transformation process, similar to the animation method held eligible in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games. Applicant’s reliance on McRO is incorrect. The patentable rules in McRO replaced manual, subjective animator decisions with an objective mathematical formula that directly improved the output quality of a 3D lip-synching software. In the instant claims, calculating a series of vector additional along grid axes to track a character’s path is a standard game logic process. Automating basic Cartesian coordinate adjustments does not improve any low-level graphic generation functionality, rather, it simply uses a generic computer to execute conventional game logic.
3. Selecting a subset of tiles including the current tile and the destination tile. Applicant argues that this limitation is a structural determination based on the map’s data model and is not a mental processes or mathematical abstraction. Selecting an operational boundary or segment within a data grid remans a standard data manipulation technique which is commonplace in game processing logic. Complex arithmetic sorting steps do not achieve paten eligibility simply because they are implemented via software executed on generic computers. This limitation is an application level constraint rather than an improvement to any core computing resources.
4. Rendering only the subset of tiles. Applicant argues that this is a particular graphical rendering technique tied to how the computer organizes map data and updates the screen, and similar to the claims found eligible in Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs. And Trending Techs. Int’l v. CQG provide GUI and display improvements which should be eligible. The dynamic screen layout in Core Wireless improved the structural real estate of a mobile screen interface, while Trading Technologies resolved a high-speed data transmission synchronization error. Applicant’s step of rendering “only the subset” of tiles, as claimed, describes standard rendering techniques which merely filters or clips what is visible on the screen at a given point. The claimed process merely changes what data is actively visible on the screen during a gameplay session. Unlike Core Wireless or Electric Power Group, the instant claims limiting, selecting, and visually presenting of a specific subset of retrieved metrics on a screen is a matter of data display choice rather than a technical solution to a hardware or display rendering problem.
Applicant argues that the claims recite “significantly more” than any abstract idea and that similar to the claims found eligible in BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, the instant claims recite a non-conventional, specific combination of technical features that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional (See Remarks, pg. 13). The examiner must respectfully disagree. In BASCOM the Federal Circuit found an inventive concept because a specific, localized filtering tool was integrated into a remote network servicer in an unconventional structural arrangement to solve a particular telecommunications security vulnerability. In contrast, the instant claims merely describe the execution of standard graphic display operations using commonplace software rules and functions. Performing standard application functions using generic computer hardware does not yield an inventive concept under BASCOM, but rather, remains a generic implementation of a judicial exception.
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