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 .
Applicant’s amendments dated 5/11/26 are hereby 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in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential); and/or claim the rules of a game which has been identified by the CAFC as being an abstract ides in decisions such as, e.g., Savvy Dog Systems v. Pennsylvania Coin (non-precedential; 2023-1073; 3/21/24), in terms of the Applicant claiming: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
dynamically adjusting a transparency of the first coordinate axis […] based on a first distance between the [visual] object and the first [visual] environment as the [visual] object leaves the first [visual] environment, the transparency of the first coordinate axis having a negative correlation with the first distance; and
in response to the first distance 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 with a display screen, 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 with a display screen, 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 and text regarding same.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in regard to Core Wireless and Trading Technologies are largely addressed by the responses made to similar arguments provided in the prior Office action by the Examiner. Applicant further argues in this regard:
PNG
media_image1.png
602
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments here are not persuasive. Applicant is claiming an invention whereby certain displays are rendered and then those displays are altered based on the game play that takes place and the rules of the game. There are any number of, e.g., card, dice, and/or role-playing games whereby there is an initial display of game indicia that is then altered based on the players then play the game. In other words, there is very much a “pre-computer analog” to the idea of altering a visual display in the context of game being played by human beings. What is more, claiming an ostensibly novel and/or non-obvious visual display by using a computer device (“a specific computational display mechanism…that has no pre-computer analog”, emphasis original) does not necessarily claim patent eligible subject matter under the Mayo test unless that invention makes some technological improvement to the claimed computer device itself:
PNG
media_image2.png
356
474
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Broadband ITV v. Amazon, slip. op., page 13.
And there is no technological problem that is necessarily solved by Applicant’s invention. Instead, the problem identified by the Applicant in its PGPUB that it is trying to solve is mental confusion on the part of a human game player caused by overly complex and conflicting maps being provided for a gaming space:
PNG
media_image3.png
272
294
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Any improvement, thereby, resulting from Applicant’s invention is not technological to the extent that it does not address some shortcoming of the computer device itself. Instead, the improvement that may result from Applicant’s invention is in terms of an improved efficiency and/or ease of use by the human game player of the gaming map. This, however, is not a technological improvement and, thereby, does not render patent eligible subject matter under the Mayo test. See in this regard the CAFC’s decision 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.")
What is more, Applicant’s reliance on Trading Technologies v. CQG (non-precedential) is likewise mis-placed. The “specifically identified problem in the prior state of the art” in that instance was challenges that arose from lag times associated with online commodities trading. In other words, unlike as in regard to the instant Application, something very much a problem with “no pre-computer analog”, emphasis original.
Applicant further argues in this regard:
PNG
media_image4.png
88
670
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
242
672
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments here are not persuasive. Again, improving “the clarity of the interface” is not a technological improvement because it is something that only matters to the human being playing the game. In other words, Applicant’s claimed invention does not result in improved “clarity of the interface” in terms of, e.g., rendering it in a higher resolution than otherwise possible and/or providing a more lifelike visual display, which is something that would be patent eligible under the Mayo test. Applicant’s claimed invention does not make, in other words, any physical improvement to the computer’s ability to render the display itself but, instead, merely arranges certain content on that display in a manner which a human being looking at it would find it less confusing. This distinction is pointed out by the CAFC in its decision in SAP America v. Investpic:
PNG
media_image6.png
372
470
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Id., slip. op., page 9.
Applicant further argues that the 101 rejection failed to make the required Berkheimer finding in regard to the claimed ordered combination. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the rejection states that 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 with a display screen, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. There is no requirement that a Berkheimer finding be made in regard to the limitations that comprise Applicant’s abstract idea itself.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights