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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/11/25 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process that can be performed by a human being, and/or the rules of a game.
In regard to Claim 1, the following limitations can be performed as a mental process by a human being in terms of claiming collecting data, analyzing that data, and providing outputs based on that analysis which has been held by the CAFC to be an abstract idea in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential); and/or claim the rules of a game which has been identified by the CAFC as being an abstract ides in decisions such as, e.g., Savvy Dog Systems v. Pennsylvania Coin (non-precedential; 2023-1073; 3/21/24), in terms of the Applicant claiming:
[a] coordinate axis display method applied to [visual] environments […] the method comprising:
displaying a [visual] environment picture;
concurrently displaying a first coordinate axis corresponding to a first [visual] environment at a first position in the [visual] environment picture, and displaying a second coordinate axis corresponding to a second [visual] environment at a second position in the [visual] environment picture, wherein a [visual] object is located in the first [visual] environment, the second [visual] environment is a [visual] environment other than the first [visual] environment, and the coordinate axes carry markers in the [visual] environments, each of the markers indicating a candidate destination of the [visual] object where a task can be accomplished, destination of the [visual] object where a task can be accomplished, wherein the first position and the second position are fixed, predefined regions of the [visual]environment picture, center points of the first coordinate axis and the second coordinate axis are aligned, and the first position indicates the coordinate axis of the [visual] environment where the [visual] object is currently located; and
updating the first coordinate axis and the second coordinate axis as the [visual] object moves from the first [visual] environment to the second [visual] environment, the updating comprising in response to a first distance between the [visual] object and the first [visual] environment reaching a first distance threshold or a second distance between the [visual] object and the second [visual] environment reaching a second distance threshold as the [visual] object leaves the first [visual] environment, swapping display positions so that the second coordinate axis is displayed at the first position and the first coordinate axis is displayed at the second position.
In regard to the dependent claims, they also claim an abstract idea to the extent that they merely claim further limitations that likewise could be performed as a mental process by a human being, and/or the rules of a game.
Furthermore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because to the extent that additional elements are claimed either alone or in combination such as, e.g., embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as computer instructions stored on a non-transitory memory and executed by a computer processor located in, e.g., a terminal, these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering), to embody the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In this regard, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) in regard to “courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application…”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that taken individually, and also taken as an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g., embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as computer instructions stored on a non-transitory memory and executed by a computer processor located in, e.g., a terminal, these are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements and are claimed for the well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of collecting and processing data and/or providing an analysis/outputs based on that processing. To the extent that an apparatus is claimed as an additional element said apparatus fails to qualify as a “particular machine” to the extent that it is claimed generally, merely implements the steps of Applicant’s claimed method, and is claimed merely for purposes of extra-solution activity or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(b). As evidence that these additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, Applicant’s specification discloses the support for these elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See, e.g., F13 in Applicant’s PGPUB.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on page 13 of its Remarks that its claimed invention is analogous to that of Core Wireless. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the CAFC held in that decision that the claimed GUI in question was patent eligible because it improved the functionality of a specific device qua device, namely, a small cellphone display. Applicant’s claimed invention is not directed to any such improvement but is instead provides information that is helpful to a human being playing a video game to play that game more successfully. Applicant’s claimed invention is, thereby, more analogous to the invention found to be patent ineligible by the CAFC in Trading Technologies v IBG LLC (2017-2257; 4/18/19) in terms of a specific user interface was claimed and the Court concluded that it was not a technological improvement ("This invention makes the trader faster and more efficient, not the computer. This is not a technical solution to a technical problem.") For similar reasons, Applicant’s claimed invention is likewise not analogous to the 3D computer spreadsheet GUI claimed in Data Engine Technologies.
Applicant’s argument on page 14 of its Remarks in is not persuasive because the CAFC in the second-cited Trading Technologies decision did not hold that patent eligible subject matter was claimed under Mayo by merely claiming a GUI that changes its visual appearance under some certain circumstances. Instead the CAFC held that patent eligible subject matter was claimed because the GUI in question provided an improved method for traders to make better computerized trades based on the inherent lag times involved in such trading by providing an improved visual display. Applicant’s claimed invention does not concern anything of the like. Instead, Applicant’s claimed invention concerns providing a visual display to a human being in order to improve that human being’s ability to play a game, which is not a technological improvement.
Applicant also argues on page 14:
PNG
media_image1.png
266
675
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the Berkheimer finding citing evidence of something to be well-understood, routine, and conventional is only required in regard to elements claimed in addition to the abstract idea. The limitations in question (“two environment-specific axes with markers…primary region”) are, instead, identified in the rejection as being part of the abstract idea, as being part of the visual display claimed therein. Furthermore, to the extent that Applicant claims a computer display upon which this visual display appears such a use of a computer display has been held repeatedly by the CAFC to not claim “significantly more”. See, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician (non-precedential).
Applicant’s remaining arguments are not persuasive for the reasons stated supra, as well as for the reasons stated in the prior Office action in response to similar arguments. In short, a way of providing a map to someone playing a game is not analogous to, e.g., maximizing a small cellphone display or providing a new way of navigating an electronic three-dimensional spreadsheet.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is listed in the attached PTO-Form 892 and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715