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 Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 12/02/2025. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below.
Claims 2, 8, and 17 were cancelled.
Applicant’s IDS submission is acknowledged and provided herewith.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-16, and 18-20 are now pending.
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, 3-7, 9-16, and 18 to 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The examiner follows the two step-analysis, as described in MPEP 2106 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html). The following diagram is an overview of the steps involved.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1 of the two step-analysis considers whether the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention such as a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The instant invention claims a method and a system in claims 1, 3-7, 9-16, and 18 to 20. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad statutory categories of invention. However, claims that fall within one of the four statutory categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas.
Step 2A has been further divided into two prongs as shown in the following diagram.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon. The term “abstract idea” is not interpreted as a layperson might. Instead, the term “abstract idea” is interpreted as described in legal opinions by courts.
According to MPEP 2106.04(a):
the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – 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); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Here representative Independent Claims 1, 10, and 19 recites the following:
Representative claim 1 recites the following (with emphasis): “1. (Currently amended) A method, comprising:
brokering a digital match between a first party and a second party, wherein the brokering includes a wager between the first party and the second party over an outcome of the digital match;
receiving at least one wager from a wager portal [[funds]] from at least one of the first party or the second party;
continuously calling, pulling, obtaining, retrieving, and/or receiving play data from a gaming server, the data being associated with the first party and the second party;
recording a video of the digital match;
determining the outcome of the digital match in favor of one of the first party or the second party; and
releasing funds to either the first party or the second party based on the outcome,
providing playback of the video of the digital match, wherein playback is accessed for a payment from a viewer, and
determining a ranking of at least one of the first party and the second party based on the outcome of the digital match, wherein the ranking is computed based on one or more metrics of the digital match, and wherein the ranking reflects a level of skill of the first party or the second party.”
The underlined portions of the claim and similarly recited Claims 10 and 19 generally encompass the abstract idea. The dependent claims further define the abstract idea by comparisons, judgments, and documentation about the match (e.g., cumulative rankings, maintaining funds, ). The abstract idea may be viewed, for example, as:
a method of exchanging financial obligations (e.g., wager games, which are effectively methods of exchanging and resolving financial obligations based on probabilities created during the game) as discussed in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. 208 (2014), In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2018),
a fundamental economic practice (e.g., rules for conducting a game as determined by odds) as discussed in In re Smith, and In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V.,
a method of managing a game similar to that of managing a game of bingo in Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F. App'x 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (non-precedential);
a set of game rules similar to increasing or decreasing the risk-to-reward ratio of a game, as discussed in Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of Am., 4 F.4th 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021);
use of machine learning in a given environment (e.g., for analyzing wager information) as discussed in Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2025); and/or
a method of organizing human activities (e.g., allowing a human player to play an award-providing game according to rules of the game method) as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank.
The claimed abstract idea reproduced above is effectively a method of exchanging and resolving financial obligations between one or more players and an operator of the gaming system based on probabilities created during the game (see Smith, Marco Guldenaar, and Alice). Based on the reasoning in Smith, and Marco Guldenaar, the recited steps of conducting a game in the instant claims relate to the “fundamental economic practice” of rules for conducting a game. The abstract idea is also similar to that of Planet Bingo, in which a method of managing a bingo game was found to be an abstract idea. Though the instant claims are not limited to bingo games, they encompass the management of similar games. The abstract idea is also comparable to the game rules presented on gaming machines in Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of America, in which a reward probability could be increased or decreased based on aggregating previous game outcomes placed on the gaming machines. Finally, the claims allow a player to select a wagering game, which is a financial transaction based on the rules of the game. Such transactions are akin to the sort of organizing of human activities, i.e., risk hedging, discussed in Bilski (and shadow accounts in Alice). Therefore, under prong 1, the above analysis demonstrates that the claimed invention encompasses an abstract idea in the form of mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the additional elements in the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. To do so, the examiner looks to the following exemplary considerations, looking at the elements individually and in combination (as set forth by MPEP §2106.05). The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
(a) It does not improve the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field;
(b) Applying the judicial exception does not effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
(c) Do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine;
(d) It does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing;
(e) It does not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the exception to a particular technological environment such that the claims as a whole are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1, 10, and 19 (and their respective dependent Claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions on a gaming server). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Additionally the additional elements do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. In order to be patent-eligible, software patents must make a technical improvement to a computer per se. The invention must provide a “technical solution to a technical problem.” A “technical problem” is a problem arising out of computers or networks. Applicant’s invention does not address a technical problem. At best, Applicant’s invention improves the user experience while using the game application. As the court said in IBM v Zillow Group Inc. (Fed. Cir, 2022):
Furthermore, “improving a user’s experience while using a computer application is not, without more, sufficient to render the claims” patent-eligible at step one. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
Furthermore, the additional elements do not serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Thus, since Applicant’s invention does not provide a “technical solution to a technical problem,” it is not eligible under 35 USC §101. It is drawn to an abstract idea implemented on a generic computer/server. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in the independent Claims is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
Finally, under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements:
• add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The present 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 recite a display device, a random number generator, a processor, and a memory. These additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable a game to be conducted by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and storing data, (ii) automating mental tasks and (iii) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. Therefore, for at least the above reasons, the Claims are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., rules for conducting a game and/or mental process) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of the claims provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
AIA Notice
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0236894 A1 to Paradise et al. (Paradise) in view of U.S. Patent 9,479,602 to Paradise et al. (hereinafter Paradise-2).
Regarding Claim 1, and similarly recited Claims 10 and 19, (Currently amended) Paradise discloses a method, comprising:
brokering a digital match between a first party and a second party, wherein the brokering includes a wager between the first party and the second party over an outcome of the digital match (paras. [0012] discloses a plurality of players and a wager amount for each player can be received. Each player is enrolled in a third party skills based digital gaming competition … para. [0014] discloses The third party game can be an asynchronous competitive skill based game played between each player. The third party game can be a synchronous competitive skill based game played between each player … para. [0034] discloses FIG. 1 is a system diagram 100 illustrating a system that facilitates wagering within electronic multiplayer games of skill. A plurality of players 110.sub.i (i=1, 2, . . . , N) operate respective player clients 120.sub.i. Each player client 120.sub.i includes a third party game instance 130.sub.i. The game instance 130.sub.i is any online digital game (e.g., video game) in which player skill determines game outcome, not chance, and wherein multiple players 110.sub.i can compete against one another online);
receiving at least one wager from a wager portal [[funds]] from at least one of the first party or the second party (paras. [0012] discloses a plurality of players and a wager amount for each player can be received … para. [0035] discloses each game instance 130.sub.i includes a peer-wagering module 140.sub.i. The peer-wagering module 140.sub.i integrates into the game instance 130.sub.i and enables the players 110.sub.i to wager on the outcome of a given game competition. The peer-wagering module 140.sub.i communicates with and works in tandem with a transactional server 160);
continuously calling, pulling, obtaining, retrieving, and/or receiving play data from a gaming server, the data being associated with the first party and the second party (paras. [0034]-[0035], [0070], [0078], [0087]);
determining the outcome of the digital match in favor of one of the first party or the second party (paras. [0052] discloses the transactional server 160 receives data characterizing the outcome of the competition. The data can include in-game statistics and indicate that some of the enrolled players are winners and some are losers ... para. [0047] discloses Once the transactional server 160 secures funds from all participating players 110.sub.i, the tournament can proceed. The tournament proceeds under normal game mechanics (such as each game instance 130.sub.i communicating game data with the game server 150) until game play completes. The transactional server 160 receives completed game statistics from the game server 150 or, alternatively, from each peer-wagering module 140.sub.i. The game statistics can indicate winners and losers based on one or more in-game metrics);
releasing funds to either the first party or the second party based on the outcome (paras. [0014] discloses the transactional server can receive game statistics describing the results of the online gaming competition from the third party gaming server and automatically transfer, based on the received game statistics, at least a portion of the secured funds to at least one account associated with at least one of the players … para. [0015] discloses data characterizing the outcome of the third party skills based gaming competition can be received. At least a portion of the secured funds can be transferred, using the online skills based digital game wagering platform, to an account associated with one of the plurality of players. Data characterizing the transfer can be transmitted … para. [0047] discloses The transactional server 160 transfers the previously secured funds to one or more player 110.sub.i accounts based on the game statistics. For example, a winning player can have the player's winnings transferred from the other players' accounts or the secure escrow account into the winning player's account), and
determining a ranking of at least one of the first party and the second party based on the outcome of the digital match, wherein the ranking is computed based on one or more metrics of the digital match, and wherein the ranking reflects a level of skill of the first party or the second party (paras. [0008]-[0009] discloses historical skills-based gaming metrics can include one or more of:, … user ranking … Historical skills-based gaming metrics can be aggregated by tracking a user's game data over a period of time … para. [0057] discloses establishing tournaments can allow players 110.sub.i to compete with one another within skill-based games in a single or series of contests … para. [0071] discloses in FIG. 6 is an example user interface 600 integrated into a third party game that presents to the player 110.sub.i and shows the game statistics and results (e.g., a leader board). Column 610 lists each tournament participants account name. Column 620 displays each participating player's in-game rank and column 630 displays each participating player's in game score).
Although Paradise discloses one or more characteristics of the received data can be monitored and the monitored characteristics can be compared to historical characteristics associated with the player to detect fraudulent behavior by the player, it does not explicitly disclose:
recording a video of the digital match; and
providing playback of the video of the digital match, wherein playback is accessed for a payment from a viewer.
In a related invention, Paradise 2 discloses recording a video of the digital match (Col. 6:3-42 discloses video replay engine 270 can facilitate capture of video of activity in a software interface display space on client 220.sub.i (e.g., such as capturing a display of game 230.sub.i); enable processing, streaming, and storing of the captured video) and providing playback of the video of the digital match, wherein playback is accessed for a payment from a viewer (Col. 6:3-42 discloses video replay engine 270 can provide for video capture and streaming of game play during an event. Video recordings can be streamed live and stored for all game entries which can later be verified for authenticity (e.g., anti-cheating) and also reviewed live by an event host for entertainment, information, and to increase engagement of players. Video replay engine 270 can facilitate capture of video of activity in a software interface display space on client 220.sub.i (e.g., such as capturing a display of game 230.sub.i); enable processing, streaming, and storing of the captured video).
Paradise and Paradise-2 are synonymous as both prior art discloses peer to peer wagering platforms. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the recording features of Paradise-2 with the gaming system of Paradise in order to further enhance the enjoyment of peer-to-peer competition among the players of the game.
Regarding Claim 3, and similarly recited Claim 12, (Currently amended) Paradise in view of Paradise-2 discloses the method of claim 1[[2]], further comprising:
conducting the digital match via a digital video game (Paradise, paras. [0008]-[0009] discloses historical skills-based gaming metrics can include one or more of:, … user ranking … Historical skills-based gaming metrics can be aggregated by tracking a user's game data over a period of time … para. [0057] discloses Establishing tournaments can allow players 110.sub.i to compete with one another within skill-based games in a single or series of contests); and
updating composite rankings, wherein the composite rankings are determined across a plurality of digital video games (Paradise, fig. 6, paras. [0008]-[0009] discloses historical skills-based gaming metrics can include one or more of:, … user ranking … Historical skills-based gaming metrics can be aggregated by tracking a user's game data over a period of time … para. [0057] discloses Establishing tournaments can allow players 110.sub.i to compete with one another within skill-based games in a single or series of contests ... para. [0034] discloses the game instance 130.sub.i is any online digital game (e.g., video game) in which player skill determines game outcome, not chance, and wherein multiple players 110.sub.i can compete against one another online. Games are consistent across game instances 130.sub.i (e.g., if the players 110.sub.i are playing chess, each game instance 130.sub.i is an instance of an electronic chess game)).
Regarding Claim 4, and similarly recited Claim 13, (Original) Paradise in view of Paradise-2 discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining a ranking of at least one of the first party and the second party based the outcome of the wager (Paradise, figs. 5-6, para. [0074] discloses all active gaming statistics including rank of each player is communicated and coordinated between the game instance 130.sub.i and the gaming server).
Regarding Claim 5, and similarly recited Claim 14, (Original) Paradise in view of Paradise-2 discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
updating a cumulative rankings according to the outcome of the wager, wherein the cumulative rankings include a plurality of parties (Paradise, figs. 5-6, para. [0060] discloses a private tournament creator can incorporate team scoring relative to the win-metric in determining prize allocation);
determining a top party according to the cumulative rankings (Paradise, figs. 5-6); and
providing a reward to the top party, wherein the reward is one of a sponsorship or extra funds (Paradise, figs. 5-6, para. [0058] discloses top contenders from each non-concluded match can be rewarded the win for that match).
Regarding Clam 6 and similarly recited Claims 15 and 20, (Original) Paradise in view of Paradise-2 discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
maintaining the funds in escrow until the outcome of the digital match is determined (Paradise, para. [0019] discloses users can complete a wager conveniently and receive any winnings. Users can track individual winnings and losses and, when placing bets, can be comfortable knowing that the current subject matter places wagered funds in escrow to guarantee payment to the winner(s); para. [0035] the peer-wagering module 140.sub.i communicates with and works in tandem with a transactional server 160. The transactional server 160 maintains account information for each player 110.sub.i, including financial information, and acts as a trusted party to hold funds in escrow and/or secure funds to enforce the terms of a wager … paras. [0045] discloses Referring again to FIG. 1, players 110.sub.i can register and fund accounts either directly with the transactional server 160 (for example, accessing the server via a web browser) or through the peer-wagering module 140.sub.i.).
Regarding Claim 9, and similarly recited Claim 18, (Original) Paradise in view of Paradise-2 discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
interfacing with a gaming server to determine the outcome of the digital match, wherein the outcome of the digital match is one of an outright winner or a higher scoring party (Paradise, paras. [0058] discloses a specific win-metric can determine the winners of each match … para. [0059] discloses each tournament or tournament round can have defined criteria by which the winner(s) are determined. Possible win-metrics can be dependent on the type of game, but can include (for example): highest score).
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0236894 A1 to Paradise et al. in view of U.S. Patent 9,479,602 to Paradise et al. (hereinafter Paradise-2) and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0065516 A1 to Warren.
Regarding Claim 7 (Original), Paradise discloses the method of claim 1, comprising: but does not explicitly disclose wherein the funds are block chain funds or distributed ledger based funds.
In a related invention, Warren discloses wherein the funds are block chain funds or distributed ledger based funds (paras. [0040], [0045] discloses a record of wagers placed (or wager indicia) may be stored as hashes of the fantasy team data and wager amount, verifiable certificates, encoded data sequences, data elements, printed/printable tickets, quick response (QR) codes, blockchain elements, tokens, and/or other data records. For example, wager record component 206 may be configured to record each transaction related to system 100 (e.g., payments made from one or more financial accounts or via credit cards of users, wagers placed, wager outcomes determined, payouts distributed, and/or other transactions) to a distributed ledger shared by one or more nodes on a network … a user may submit payment associated with one or more wagers and/or receive an amount of a payout associated with one or more wager opportunities via a cryptocurrency wallet. Accordingly, system 100 may be configured to accept from users and/or pay out to users an amount in cryptocurrency (e.g., Bitcoin, Litecoin, Ethereum, and/or other type of cryptocurrency)).
Paradise discloses characterizing historical skills-based gaming metrics for a first user and historical skills-based gaming metrics for at least one second user is accessed. Warren discloses a digital gaming system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined teaching of Paradise and Paradise-2 with the teaching of Warren for the purpose of effectively and securely recording wagers placed by a user in a database in association with a user account (Warren, para. [0040]).
Regarding Claim 16, a similar rejection is also applied similar to the rejection of Claim 7.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant addresses the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on pages 6-8 of the Remarks section. More particularly, Applicant contends that specifically, regarding independent claims 1, 10, and 19 the claimed subject matter improves wagering and e-sports technologies and thus integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant alleges that the claimed invention provides improvements in wagering and e-sports technologies. “Here, [0004]-[0007] and [0029]-[0030] of published application describes improving prior systems by binding settlement to authenticated game data, implementing secure and transparent escrow and payout, providing a ranking of the player, and monetizing video playback. Remarks p. 6. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims requires only generic computer components used in a conventional way. The additional elements of the claim do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. In order to be patent-eligible, software patents must make a technical improvement to a computer per se. The invention must provide a “technical solution to a technical problem.” A “technical problem” is a problem arising out of computers or networks. Applicant’s invention does not address a technical problem. The recited paragraphs of the present disclosure may include improvement of prior systems to implement the game and enhance the game. However, neither of these are ”technical problems” arising out of computers. It is well within the ability of a computer to display the claimed graphics and present the game. At best, Applicant’s invention improves the user experience while playing and interacting with the game.
For the reasons above, the claims fail to demonstrate patent eligibility and is thus maintained.
Applicant addresses the rejection of claims as anticipated by, or obvious over, Paradise on pages 8-10 of the Remarks. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SHAUNA-KAY HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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.
/S.N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715 /DAVID L LEWIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715