DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. In response to the amendment filed 16 December 2025, claims 1-20 remain pending.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
3. 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 an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 8 and 14 recite a method comprising:
receiving one or matrix metrics based on a user’s interactions in a plurality of game modes for football simulations,
predicting, based on the matrix metrics, a learning potential of the user by generating a combination of scores of the user’s interactions, and
simultaneously presenting a replay of the user’s interactions and results for other interactions the user could have made.
The limitations of receiving metrics, predicting a learning potential, and presenting a replay and results, as drafted, constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “computing device” and a “GUI”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computing device” language, “receiving” and “predicting” in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually obtaining the metrics, for example using a pen and paper, and making a mental determination regarding the prediction. Similarly, the limitation of outputting by simultaneously, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “GUI” language, a person could display the replay and other results, for example using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites using a computing device and generic GUI to perform the claimed steps. The computing device and GUI are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing device performing a generic computer function of receiving and processing information, and a generic GUI displaying results) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computing device and GUI to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-13 and 15-20 recite the same abstract idea as in their respective parent claims, and only recite additional abstract details of the matrix metrics, assessing decision making, and displaying the simulation on a generic GUI. Therefore, these claims do not recite additional limitations sufficient to direct the claimed invention to significantly more for the reasons detailed above.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments filed 16 December 2025 with respect to the section 101 rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Step 2A, Prong 1, Applicant argues the claims are akin to those in Example 39, and recite a concrete and technological improvement, not an abstract mental process. This is not persuasive. As detailed above, the claims are drawn to collecting matrix metrics, analyzing them, and displaying results of the collection and analysis. This is akin to the claims in Electric Power Group which were found to be ineligible. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Applicant further argues the claimed operations cannot be performed in the human mind because they require processing large volumes of data. However, in Electric Power Group the claims involved processing large amounts of power grid data, but the court found that the claims were still drawn to an abstract idea. Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive. Regarding Step 2A, Prong 2, Applicant argues that the claims solve a technical problem by enabling a computing system to dynamically analyze user interactions in simulation and generate predictive insights. This is not persuasive. As detailed in the rejection above, the claims merely recite the idea of collecting data regarding multiple simulations, analyzing it, and displaying results, and further utilize generic computing components to achieve this idea. This does not represent an improvement to the computer or any other technical area. Applicant also likens the claimed simultaneous presenting to Example 37, claim 1, and argues the instant claims are eligible for the same reasons. However, in Example 37 the claims were drawn specifically to a method of managing a GUI by rearranging icons based on usage history. The instant claims on the other hand merely utilize a GUI to present two items of information simultaneously. Presenting items simultaneously on a GUI does not represent an improvement to GUI technology; instead, it only serves to use the GUI as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the section 112 and 102 rejections, in view of the corresponding amendments, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The section 112 and 102 rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
6. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER EGLOFF whose telephone number is (571)270-3548. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.uspto.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.
/Peter R Egloff/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights