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 .
Claim Status
After the amendments filed 03/04/2026, claims 1-20 remain pending, of which 1-2, 9-10, and 15-16 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 1-20 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 9 and 15, having substantially similar features, were also analyzed and to which the following conclusion is also applicable:
1. A gaming system comprising:
a housing comprising an access door;
a security monitoring circuit supported by the housing, that monitors the access door, and that causes a signal to be sent to a remote server when the access door is opened;
a plurality of output devices comprising: a display device supported by the housing, a ticket printer supported by the housing, and a speaker supported by the housing;
a sound card supported by the housing and operable with the speaker;
a plurality of input devices comprising: a touch screen input device supported by the housing and operable with the display device, an acceptor supported by the housing, a validator supported by the housing, and a cash-out button supported by the housing;
a processor supported by the housing; and
a trusted memory device supported by the housing and configured to provide a gaming regulatory authority a root trusted authority that can be tracked and verified as original, the trusted memory device storing a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, via the display device, of a credit balance after the acceptor receives a physical currency or a physical ticket after the validator validates the physical currency or the physical ticket, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
randomly determine different sheet music from a database, wherein the different sheet music have different components (Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity),
cause a display, by a display device, of an indication of selected sheet music selected by a player from the randomly determined different sheet music (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity),
determine a part of the selected sheet music (Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity),
cause a display, by the display device, of the determined part of the selected sheet music (Mental Processes),
determine components of the determined part of the selected sheet music (Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity),
cause a display, by a display device, of the determined components of the selected sheet music (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity),
determine a mapping of the determined components of the determined part of the selected sheet music onto a reel (Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity),
cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of the mapping of the components of the determined part of selected sheet music on the reel (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity),
cause a display, by the display device, of the reel spinning and stopping to display certain of the components on the reel (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
determine an outcome based on the displayed components of the determined part of the selected sheet music on the reel (Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity), and
cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of the outcome based on the displayed components of the determined part of the selected sheet music on the reel (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity).
The limitations in claim 1 (as well as claim(s) 9 and 15) 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 processor, a memory device, a display 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. In light of the applicant's specification, several limitations identified above are interpreted as reciting rules for managing player interactions and game behavior, which falls squarely within the Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People grouping. For example, the specification explains that the system determines a component of a selected sheet music, maps the selected component of the sheet music onto a reel and displays an outcome based on the mapping (See Specification, ¶4-6). These limitations describe following a prescribed sequence of steps, conditions and outcomes that govern the player's interaction with the gaming system. The Federal Circuit has held that such game related rules and player interaction logic constitute abstract ideas. See In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the claim limitations directed to steps that govern gameplay are properly categorized as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities, as they merely recite the rules and instructions for conducting the game and managing player behavior, implemented utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in the claims; and/or
B. Concepts performed in the human mind (e.g., “determine a part of the selected sheet music”), 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 2-8, 10-14 and 16-20:
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 processor, a memory device, a display device”, 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.
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 an openable access door, a security monitoring circuit, a plurality of input devices, a display device, a ticket printer, a processor, a trusted memory device are well-known conventional devices used to electronically implement a game as evidence by U.S. 2004/0097285, which discloses that a conventional gaming machine comprises elements such as an openable access door and a security monitoring circuit (¶9-10), U.S. 2004/0043813 which discloses that a conventional gaming machine comprises elements such as a plurality of input devices (¶43), display devices (¶41) and a ticket printer (¶9, ¶43), U.S. 2016/0310830 which discloses that a conventional gaming machine comprises elements such as a trusted memory device (¶103) and U.S. 2011/0130199 which discloses that a conventional gaming machine comprises elements such as a processor (¶32) to control the overall operation of the gaming machine. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iremonger et al (U.S. 2013/0157759) in view of Hwang (U.S. 2016/0310830).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 15, Iremonger discloses:
a gaming system (Fig. 5, gaming machine 500) comprising:
a housing comprising (¶67-68, Fig. 5, housing 520);
a plurality of output devices comprising: a display device supported by the housing (¶75, Fig. 5, display 540, additional displays 553), a ticket printer supported by the housing (¶76, Fig. 6, printer 625), and a speaker supported by the housing (¶76, Fig. 6, speaker 643);
a sound card supported by the housing and operable with the speaker (¶68, cabinet housing 520 houses circuitry for transmitting signals to the speakers, the examiner interprets this circuitry as a sound card);
a plurality of input devices comprising: a touch screen input device supported by the housing and operable with the display device (¶69-70, Fig. 5, buttons 560 which are implemented as touch screen buttons), an acceptor supported by the housing (¶67, Fig. 5, bill acceptor 580), a validator supported by the housing (¶67, Fig. 5, ticket acceptor 580), and a cash-out button supported by the housing (¶69, buttons 560 used for cashing outcome from the gaming machine);
a processor supported by the housing (Fig. 6b, EGM processor board 603); and
a memory device supported by the housing, the trusted memory device storing a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, via the display device, of a credit balance after the acceptor receives a physical currency or a physical ticket after the validator validates the physical currency or the physical ticket (¶73, game display displays a credit meter), wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor (¶63, ¶80, a game program is stored in memory connected to the gaming motherboard, the game program is executable by the processor), cause the processor to:
randomly determine different sheet music from a database, wherein the different sheet music have different components (¶11, ¶25-27, ¶30, ¶37, ¶78, a simulated musical interface 100 is triggered based on a randomly determined primary game outcome, where player selects an instrument from a plurality of instruments to play, wherein based on the selection the player is provided “karaoke-like” instructions to play one or more notes at specific times, the examiner interprets the providing of the “karaoke-like” instructions to the player to necessarily include instrument specific sheet music),
cause a display, by a display device, of an indication of selected sheet music selected by a player from the randomly determined different sheet music (¶30, based on the player’s selection a musical interface 100 is presented to the player (i.e., the displayed musical interface indicates which sheet music will be utilized to provide the “karaoke-like” instructions, for example display of piano keys indicates sheet music associated with the piano and display of a flute indicates sheet music associated with the flute)),
determine a part of the selected sheet music (¶37, ¶43-44, based on the player’s selection the musical notes which the player must play are determined),
cause a display, by the display device, of the determined part of the selected sheet music (¶44, Fig. 3, the musical notes are generated and displayed to the player),
determine components of the determined part of the selected sheet music (¶44-45, it is determined which notes of the sheet music are played correctly),
cause a display, by a display device, of the determined components of the selected sheet music (¶44-45, Fig. 4, correctly played notes are moved to a holding area),
determine a mapping of the determined components of the determined part of the selected sheet music onto a reel (¶42, ¶55, correctly played notes are moved from the holding area to one or more bonus reels 304 along a randomized path, a random determination is made as to where to place the correctly played notes on the bonus reels 304),
cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of the mapping of the components of the determined part of selected sheet music on the reel (¶42, ¶55, Fig. 4, correctly played notes are transformed into numerical representations and placed on the bonus reels 304 as symbols),
cause a display, by the display device, of the reel spinning and stopping to display certain of the components on the reel (¶56, bonus reels are spun to generate a random outcome);
determine an outcome based on the displayed components of the determined part of the selected sheet music on the reel (¶56, the bonus reels 304 are spun to generate a random outcome), and
cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of the outcome based on the displayed components of the determined part of the selected sheet music on the reel (¶56, based on the generated outcome the player may be provided an award).
However, Iremonger does not specifically disclose:
an access door;
a security monitoring circuit supported by the housing, that monitors an access door, and that causes a signal to be sent to a remote server when the access door is opened; or
that the memory device is a trusted memory device configured to provide a gaming regulatory authority a root trusted authority that can be tracked and verified as original; o
and configured to provide a gaming regulatory authority a root trusted authority that can be tracked and verified as original
Hwang teaches:
A gaming machine (¶102, Fig. 1, gaming machine 2), which includes a housing (¶102, Fig. 1, main cabinet 4) comprising an access door (¶102, main door 8), a security monitoring circuit within the housing and configured to monitor the access door (¶103, security monitoring circuit which detect intrusion into the gaming machine via security switches attached to the door), and a trusted memory device (¶103, trusted memory devices are included in a gaming machine computer to ensure the authenticity of the software) configured to provide a gaming regulatory authority a root trusted authority that can be tracked and verified as original (¶103, trusted memory devices provide gaming regulatory authorities a root trusted authority within the computing environment of the slot machine).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to integrate the security monitoring and trusted memory, as taught by Hwang, into the gaming system, as taught by Iremonger, in order to yield the predictable result of allowing preventing unauthorized access to the gaming machine and allowing the gaming machines to satisfy regulatory requirements and prevent unauthorized software modification (See Hwang, ¶100-105).
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 16, Iremonger discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the components are notes of the selected sheet music (¶44-45, correctly played notes).
Regarding claims 3 and 8, Iremonger discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses:
enabling the player to, via an input device, select the sheet music from the different sheet music (¶30, ¶37, the player selects an instrument from a plurality of instruments to play, wherein based on the selection the player is provided “karaoke-like” instructions to play one or more notes at specific times, the examiner interprets the providing of the “karaoke-like” instructions to the player to necessarily include instrument specific sheet music).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Iremonger discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses:
enabling the player to, via an input device, select musical content (¶29-30, the player selects an instrument from a plurality of instruments to play via a touch-screen input). Providing additional selectable options (e.g., types of music) is a predictable variation of the same user selection mechanism. User selectable content categories are well-known in gaming interfaces and a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to provide different types of music content, such as types of music, as this merely involves a simple design choice of offering additional selectable options.
Regarding claim 5, Iremonger discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses:
enabling the player to, via an input device, select musical content (¶29-30, the player selects an instrument from a plurality of instruments to play via a touch-screen input). Providing additional selectable options (e.g., a musical group) is a predictable variation of the same user selection mechanism. User selectable content categories are well-known in gaming interfaces and a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to provide different types of music content, such as musical groups, as this merely involves a simple design choice of offering additional selectable options.
Regarding claim 6, Iremonger discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses:
enabling the player to, via an input device, select musical content (¶29-30, the player selects an instrument from a plurality of instruments to play via a touch-screen input). Providing additional selectable options (e.g., a song) is a predictable variation of the same user selection mechanism. User selectable content categories are well-known in gaming interfaces and a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to provide different types of music content, such as a song, as this merely involves a simple design choice of offering additional selectable options.
Regarding claim 7, Iremonger discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses:
enabling the player to, via an input device, select musical content (¶29-30, the player selects an instrument from a plurality of instruments to play via a touch-screen input). Providing additional selectable options (e.g., different sheet music) is a predictable variation of the same user selection mechanism. User selectable content categories are well-known in gaming interfaces and a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to provide different types of music content, such as different sheet music, as this merely involves a simple design choice of offering additional selectable options.
Regarding claim 11, Iremonger discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses:
enabling the player to select musical content (¶29-30, the player selects an instrument from a plurality of instruments to play via a touch-screen input). Providing additional selectable options (e.g., songs all of a same type of music) is a predictable variation of the same user selection mechanism. User selectable content categories are well-known in gaming interfaces and a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to provide different types of music content, such as songs all of a same type of music, as this merely involves a simple design choice of offering additional selectable options.
Regarding claims 12 and 18, Iremonger discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses:
enabling the player to select musical content (¶29-30, the player selects an instrument from a plurality of instruments to play via a touch-screen input). Providing additional selectable options (e.g., different types of music prior to indications of different songs) is a predictable variation of the same user selection mechanism. User selectable content categories are well-known in gaming interfaces and a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to provide different sub-category selection options, such as types of music, as this merely involves a simple design choice of offering additional filtering options (i.e., narrowing options by type of music) in order to yield the predictable result of providing users with a more structured and easier user interface in which to find the content they are seeking.
Regarding claims 13 and 19, Iremonger discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
enabling the player to, via an input device, select musical content (¶29-30, the player selects an instrument from a plurality of instruments to play via a touch-screen input). Providing additional selectable options (e.g., a same musical group) is a predictable variation of the same user selection mechanism. User selectable content categories are well-known in gaming interfaces and a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to provide different types of music content, such as the same musical groups, as this merely involves a simple design choice of offering additional selectable options.
Regarding claims 14 and 20, Iremonger discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses:
enabling the player to select musical content (¶29-30, the player selects an instrument from a plurality of instruments to play via a touch-screen input). Providing additional selectable options (e.g., different musical groups prior to indications of different songs) is a predictable variation of the same user selection mechanism. User selectable content categories are well-known in gaming interfaces and a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to provide different sub-category selection options, such as different musical groups, as this merely involves a simple design choice of offering additional filtering options (i.e., narrowing options by musical groupings) in order to yield the predictable result of providing users with a more structured and easier user interface in which to find the content they are seeking.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/04/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendments now direct the claims to a gaming system with specific components what differentiate it from a general-purpose computer (See Remarks, pg. 10). The examiner must respectfully disagree. While the cited specification paragraphs (¶331-355) describe difference between gaming machines and general-purpose computes, the 101 analysis is based on the claim language itself, not the specification. The amended claims recite a processor, memory, input devices, output devices, a display, a ticket printer, a player tracking display, a security monitory circuit and a trusted memory device. However, these components are recited only at a high level of generality and perform their ordinary, well-understood, routine and convention functions. The claims do not recite any improvement to the function of these components, nor do they describe any specific functions of these components which would provide any technological improvement.
Applicant argues that the additional physical components integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See Remarks, pgs. 10-11). The examiner must respectfully disagree. Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the question is whether the additional elements apply the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Here, the additional elements (e.g. a processor, memory, input devices, output devices, a display, a ticket printer, a player tracking display, a security monitory circuit and a trusted memory device) are recited generically and perform only their conventional functions (e.g., receiving input, executing instructions, displaying information, printing tickets, storing data, monitoring system status and storing regulator approved code). These conventional functions do not improve the functioning of the computer or any other technology. See Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claims merely use these components as tools to implement the abstract game rules. Thus, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/04/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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