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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges receipt of amendment/arguments filed 10/24/2025. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below. Claims 1-21 remain pending, Claim 21 has been newly added, and no Claims have been canceled. Currently, Claims 1-20 have been amended. No new matter appears to have 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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-21 is/are directed towards a statutory category they are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1, Yes).
Claim 1 recites, in part, the limitations of […], […], and […]: display, […] options via a […] match game, each […] option being associated with a game reward, a defined set of input items, and a first defined time period, wherein the defined set of input items is convertible into the game reward within the […] match game and the defined set of input items are available in an inventory during game play within the […] match game; determine that a selected […] option of the one or more selectable […] options has been selected via the […] match game, in response to user input received […], wherein the selected […] option corresponds to a selected game reward; and make the selected game reward associated with the selected […] option available after expiration of the first defined time period, the selected game reward being usable in one or more of a plurality of different levels of the […] match game. These limitations, individually and in combination, describe or set forth the abstract idea in claim 1 (substantially similar claims are also in claims 16 and 20). The Examiner notes that the specific limitations that describe or set forth the abstract idea in Step 2A Prong 1 can be identified either individually or in combination (see p. 54 of 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims recites limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer,” and that “courts have found requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The Examiner also notes that “both product claims (e.g., computer system, computer-readable medium, etc.) and process claims may recite mental processes” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements identified below do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
The claims also recite limitations that are considered a fundamental economic principle or practice (e.g., relating to commerce and economy), commercial interactions, business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The Examiner notes that certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (see p. 5 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility).
Therefore, the claims fall under the following enumerated groupings of abstract ideas: mental processes (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion)), and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., 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), or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)) (Step 2A, Prong 1, Yes).
Claim 1 recites the additional element(s) of “A computer device configured to provide a computer-implemented match game, the computer device comprising a display, at least one memory, and at least one processor configured to execute program instructions stored in the at least one memory to cause the at least one processor to: display, via the display, […] via a user interface […]; […] via the user interface […]; and […]. These additional element(s) are recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation are generic processor(s) and/or generic computer component(s) that perform generic computer functions. The generic processor and/or generic computer component limitation(s) are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional element(s) are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computers and/or generic computer components does not integrate the judicial exception or amount to significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Using a computer to take data, compute a result, and return the result to a user amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—some of the most basic functions of a computer. “[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter" (see pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements also amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Further, the courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or add significantly more. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim that integrates the judicial exception in to a practical application, nor do they amount to a claim that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 2, No).
Additionally, the specification makes it clear that the system for determining a selected option and making the selected option available at the end of a time period can be implemented on a generic computer.
[0003] In the field of computer-implemented games, there are many technical challenges facing the designer of such computer implemented games when considering how, for example, the user interface is to be controlled in the context of computer devices available to play the computer implemented game.
[0004] One technical challenge can involve allowing a game to be fun and compelling even when there is limited display resource available, such as when a computer implemented game is being played on a smartphone, tablet, or other minicomputer.
[0060] schematic view of a user device 100 according to an embodiment is shown in FIG. 4. All of the blocks shown are implemented by suitable circuitry. The blocks may be implemented in hardware and/or software. The user device may have a control part 110. The control part 110 is shown as having a graphics controller 125 and a sound controller 130. It should be appreciated that one or other or both of the graphics controller 125 and sound controller 130 may be provided by the one or more processors 115.
As such, the computer-implemented match game, for implementing the abstract idea, may require no more than generic, conventional, and well-known computer devices such as a general purpose computer (as evidenced in Para. 3-4 and Para. 60).
In Step 2B, the additional element(s) also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong 2. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. However, unless an Examiner had previously concluded under revised Step 2A that an additional element was insignificant extra-solution activity, they should reevaluate that conclusion in Step 2B (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim that integrates the judicial exception in to a practical application, nor do they amount to a claim that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2B, No).
Thus, Claims 1, 16, and 20 are rejected as shown above. Additionally, Claims 2-15, 17-19, and 21 also recite limitations that are similar to the abstract ideas identified with respect to Claim 1 above (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes). Claims 2-15, 17-19, and 21 do not recite any additional elements other than those recited in Claim 1. Therefore, for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 1, Claims 2-15, 17-19, and 21 also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Prior Art
The Examiner notes that after a thorough search on the claims, the claims currently overcome prior art. The closest prior art found to date are the following:
Putnam et al. (US 2025/0213975 A1) discloses the concept of utilizing an application that utilizes the hardware and software capabilities of a mobile device to extend the time of user engagement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant states: “Without conceding the propriety of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Applicant has
amended independent claim 1 to add features including "selectable user interface options," "the defined set of input items is convertible into the game reward within the computer-implemented match game and to specify that a selected user interface option is selected "via the user interface of the computer-implemented match game." The language of claim 1 as amended herein clearly limit the scope of the claims to the specific context of a computer-implemented
match game system. Claims 16 and 20 have been amended similarly to Claim 1. The independent claims, as amended herein, do not recite an abstract idea under any category including "mental process," "fundamental methods of organizing human activity," or "commercial interactions." Instead, the claims recite operations of a user interface that includes selectable user interface options within the computer-implemented match game environment. The claimed features include technical solutions to enhance user interaction and engagement
within the computer-implemented match game environment. The features of the claims are not divorced from, and are limited to, the context of the computer implemented match game by the claim language itself.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. With regard to the argument that the claims are patent-eligible because they do not cover all methods of a computer-implemented match game, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Questions of preemption are inherent in and resolved by the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo, as explained by the Federal Circuit in OIP and Sequenom. Moreover, while a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate that a claim is eligible.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant states: “Further, claim 3 recites "wherein the at least one processor is further configured, in response to user input received via the user interface of the computer-implemented match game, to claim the selected game reward, to provide the selected game reward in one or more of the plurality of different levels of the computer-implemented match game." The features of claim 3 further describe how the reward is used within the computer-implemented match game and how use of the reward affects the computer-implemented match game, which further integrates the claim within the specific technological environment of the computer-implemented match game. Therefore, claim 3 also does not recite an abstract idea.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, while a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate that a claim is eligible. Furthermore, as recited above, the claims also recite limitations that are considered a fundamental economic principle or practice (e.g., relating to commerce and economy), commercial interactions, business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Such that, the claims (including claim 3), based on receiving a user input to claim a game reward and providing said game reward for use in one or more of a plurality of different levels of the match game, fall under the abstract idea grouping relating to certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., 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), or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)). The claims, as outlined above, clearly relate to rules/steps for executing/operating a match game having game rewards for player use. The advance lies entirely in the realm of the abstract idea.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant states: “The Applicant does not concede that the claims recite an abstract idea and, without conceding this point, the Applicant submits that the claims, as amended herein, recite a practical application of any purportedly recited abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite a practical application within the specific computing context of an interactive user interface of a computer-implemented match game. The claims, as amended herein, do not preempt all uses of the purportedly recited abstract idea and, instead, are narrowly tailored to a specific application within the computer-implemented match game. The claim recites a practical application of any purportedly recited abstract idea in a manner that improves the functioning of the computer-implemented match game system. For example, the features recited in the claims enable time-sensitive reward delivery and conversion mechanics that increase engagement with the computer-implemented match game by the user.
Further, claim 3 recites "wherein the at least one processor is further configured, in response to user input received via the user interface of the computer-implemented match game, to claim the selected game reward, to provide the selected game reward in one or more of the plurality of different levels of the computer-implemented match game." Analogously to the claims of USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Example 40, the recited features of claim 3 further
improve the functioning of the computing environment (the computer-implemented match game), by enhancing system responsiveness (e.g., modifying the game state in response to user input) and user engagement (e.g., the user interacts with the game subsequently to their previous interaction that resulted in the conversion, in order to use the reward after the expiration of the
first defined time period). The Applicant's specification notes that the invention addresses the problem of user engagement with the computer-implemented match game (U.S. Publication No. 2025/0025789 at paragraph [0005]) and time-based reward conversion and availability mechanisms (e.g., id. at [0103]-[0106]), which increase user engagement with the computer-implemented match game. Accordingly, the Applicant submits that dependent claim 3 also recites a practical application of any purportedly recited abstract idea.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, while a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate that a claim is eligible. Furthermore, as recited above, the claims also recite limitations that are considered a fundamental economic principle or practice (e.g., relating to commerce and economy), commercial interactions, business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Such that, the claims (including claim 3), based on receiving a user input to claim a game reward and providing said game reward for use in one or more of a plurality of different levels of the match game, fall under the abstract idea grouping relating to certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., 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), or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)). The claims, as outlined above, clearly relate to rules/steps for executing/operating a match game having game rewards for player use. The advance lies entirely in the realm of the abstract idea.
“Examiners are reminded that examples issued by the Office in conjunction with the Interim Eligibility Guidance are intended to show exemplary analyses only and should not be used as a basis for a subject matter eligibility rejection or relied upon in the same manner as a decision from a court” (see p. 2 of May 2016 Memorandum: Formulating a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection and Evaluating the Applicant’s Response to a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection). Additionally, the facts of the application here do not uniquely match the facts at issue (e.g., adaptive monitoring of traffic data through a network appliance connected between computing devices) in Example 40.
Furthermore, the claimed invention does not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a). Providing a means of receiving a user input to claim a game reward and providing said game reward for use in one or more of a plurality of different levels of the match game (as claimed in claim 3) is not a technical solution to a technical problem e.g. something specific to improvements to the functioning of a computer etc., but rather provides an alternative to regular game play in a match game. Managing rewards and claiming the selected reward to provide the reward in a level(s) in a match game pertains to managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions pertaining to organizing human activity and/or a mental process. The applicant’s disclosure (¶ 5, 103-106) does provide support for user engagement, wherein, engagement involves designing gameplay to be engaging and rewarding to players and providing display options for multiple booster game objects for use in a game or level of the game; however, such disclosure does not relate to the actual improvement of the technology, but rather a means for managing or providing selectable game rewards e.g. provides another way of providing and using rewards to the user. The claims at issue lack integration into a practical application. Applicant’s claimed abstract idea lacks or fails to suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The Examiner contends that the claims do not provide an improvement to the technology in which it is generically applied.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant states: “Further, new claim 21 adds additional limitations of "wherein the selected reward is used
to assist in game play of the one or more of the plurality of different levels of the computer-implemented match game," which shows a modification of game state. Accordingly, all of the inputs and outputs of the processing steps of claim 21 are integrated within the specific technological environment of the computer-implemented match game. Furthermore, the features of new claim 21 further improve the functionality of the computer-implemented match game by
providing timely reward conversion and redemption mechanics, thereby improving system responsiveness and user engagement. The Applicant's specification notes that the invention addresses the problem of user engagement with the computer-implemented match game (U.S. Publication No. 2025/0025789 at paragraph [0005]) and also describes time-based reward conversion and availability mechanisms (e.g., id. at [0103]-[0106]), which increase user
engagement with the computer-implemented match game.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, while a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate that a claim is eligible. Additionally, as recited above, the claims also recite limitations that are considered a fundamental economic principle or practice (e.g., relating to commerce and economy), commercial interactions, business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Such that, the claims (including claim 21), based on a selected reward used to assist in game play in one or more of a plurality of different levels of the match game, fall under the abstract idea grouping relating to certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., 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), or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)). The claims, as outlined above, clearly relate to rules/steps for executing/operating a match game having game rewards for player use. The advance lies entirely in the realm of the abstract idea.
Furthermore, the claimed invention does not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a). Providing a means of assisting with game play of one or more of a plurality of different levels via the use of a selected reward in a match game (as claimed in newly added claim 21) is not a technical solution to a technical problem e.g. something specific to improvements to the functioning of a computer etc., but rather provides an alternative to regular game play in a match game. Managing rewards and selecting a reward for use in assisting in game play of a level in a match game pertains to managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions pertaining to organizing human activity and/or a mental process. The applicant’s disclosure (¶ 5, 103-106) does provide support for user engagement, wherein, engagement involves designing gameplay to be engaging and rewarding to players and providing display options for multiple booster game objects for use in a game or level of the game; however, such disclosure does not relate to the actual improvement of the technology, but rather a means for managing or providing selectable game rewards e.g. provides another way of providing and using rewards to the user. The claims at issue lack integration into a practical application. Applicant’s claimed abstract idea lacks or fails to suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The Examiner contends that the claims do not provide an improvement to the technology in which it is generically applied.
At least based on the above, the 101 rejection of claims 1-21 are herein maintained.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHASE E LEICHLITER whose telephone number is (571)270-7109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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, David Lewis can be reached at (571)272-7673. 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.
/CHASE E LEICHLITER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights