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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/31/2026 as been entered.
Procedural Summary
Claims 2, 8, and 17 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 5-7, 10, 14-16, and 19 have been amended. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-16, and 18-20 are pending.
Applicant’s IDS submission on 04/09/2026 is acknowledged and provided herewith.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20 recites “….wherein the at least one wager is are held in escrow until the outcome of the digital match is determined.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1,3-7, 9-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, and similarly recited Independent Claims 10, and 19, recites the limitation "the ranking system" in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent Claims 3-7, 9, 18 and 20 inherit this discrepancy by nature of their dependencies. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, and similarly recited Claims 10, and 19 recites “continuously calling, pulling, obtaining, retrieving, and/or receiving play data from a gaming server.” The alternative expression “and/or” combined with the string of verbs renders the scope of the claim indefinite as it is unclear whether all five acts, any one act, or some unspecified subset of acts must be performed. Further, the terms “calling, pulling, obtaining, retrieving, and receiving” are not defined in the specification as having distinct meanings. Appropriate correction is required.
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).
The limitations of the claims falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping, specifically fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interactions in the form of a wagering transaction and its settlement, and sales activities or business relations – and within the “mental processes” grouping. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsections II and III. The italicized claim language recites the abstract idea.
Independent Claim 1 recites the following: “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 (certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, specifically fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interactions in the form of a wagering transaction and its settlement, and sales activities or business relations) (arranging a bet between two people is a fundamental commercial practice);
receiving at least one wager from a wager portal [[funds]] from at least one of the first party or the second party (certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, specifically fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interactions in the form of a wagering transaction and its settlement, and sales activities or business relations) (accepting a bet);
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 (certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, specifically fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interactions);
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 (mental process: evaluation and judgment that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper);
releasing the wager (certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, specifically fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interactions in the form of a wagering transaction and its settlement, and sales activities or business relations) (settling a bet),
providing playback of the video of the digital match, wherein playback is accessed for a payment from a viewer (certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, specifically fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interactions in the form of a wagering transaction and its settlement, and sales activities or business relations) (charging admission to watch a contest), 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 (ranking competitors by performance is a mental process and an act of managing personal behavior or relations between people),
wherein the wager comprises blockchain tokens, and wherein the wager portal determines a player's value and provides tokenization of that value based on data sets assembled from the gaming server, the data sets comprising at least match play data and ranking data of the first party and the second party, (valuing a competitor based on his or her record is an evaluation and judgment; issuing a transferable instrument representing that value is a fundamental economic practice), and
wherein blockchain tokens are configured to include ranking data, and the ranking system ranks the first party and second party based on at least the outcome of the digital match, the outcome of the wager, and the play data (mental process: evaluation).”
Independent Claim 10 recites: “10. (Currently amended) An electronic e-sports wagering platform system, comprising:
brokering a digital match between at least two parties, wherein the brokering includes a wager between at least one first party and at least one second party over an outcome of the digital match (certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, specifically fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interactions in the form of a wagering transaction and its settlement, and sales activities or business relations) (arranging a bet between two people is a fundamental commercial practice);
receiving at least one wager from a wager portal from at least one of the first party or the second party (certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, specifically fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interactions in the form of a wagering transaction and its settlement, and sales activities or business relations) (accepting a bet);
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 (certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, specifically fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interactions);
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 (mental process: evaluation and judgment that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper);
providing playback of the video of the digital match, wherein playback is accessed for a payment from a viewer (certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping, specifically fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interactions in the form of a wagering transaction and its settlement, and sales activities or business relations) (charging admission to watch a contest);
releasing the wager (certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping, specifically fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interactions in the form of a wagering transaction and its settlement, and sales activities or business relations) (settling a bet); and
determining rankings of at least one of the first party and the second party based on at least one of the outcome of the digital match and the wager (ranking competitors by performance is a mental process and an act of managing personal behavior or relations between people),
wherein the wager comprises blockchain tokens, and wherein the wager portal determines a player's value and provides tokenization of that value based on data sets assembled from the gaming server, the data sets comprising at least match play data and ranking data of the first party and the second party (valuing a competitor based on his or her record is an evaluation and judgment; issuing a transferable instrument representing that value is a fundamental economic practice), and
wherein blockchain tokens are configured to include ranking data, and the ranking system ranks the first party and second party based on at least the outcome of the digital match, the outcome of the wager, and the play data (mental process: evaluation).”
Independent Claim 19 recites: “Claim 19. (Currently amended) A method, comprising:
receiving a wager between at least one first party and at least one second party over an outcome of a digital match (certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, specifically fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interactions in the form of a wagering transaction and its settlement, and sales activities or business relations) (accepting a bet);
receiving at least one wager from a wager portal from at least one of the first party or the second party (certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, specifically fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interactions in the form of a wagering transaction and its settlement, and sales activities or business relations) (accepting a bet);
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 (certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, specifically fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interactions);
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 (mental process: evaluation and judgment that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper);
releasing the wager funds to either the first party or the second party based on an outcome (certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping, specifically fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interactions in the form of a wagering transaction and its settlement, and sales activities or business relations) (settling a bet);
providing playback of the video of the digital match, wherein playback is accessed for a payment from a viewer (certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping, specifically fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interactions in the form of a wagering transaction and its settlement, and sales activities or business relations) (charging admission to watch a contest); and
determining rankings of at least one of the first party and the second party based on at least one of the outcome of the digital match and the wager (ranking competitors by performance is a mental process and an act of managing personal behavior or relations between people); and
determining a player's value and providing tokenization of that value based on data sets assembled from the gaming server, the data sets comprising at least match play data and ranking data of the first party and the second party (valuing a competitor based on his or her record is an evaluation and judgment; issuing a transferable instrument representing that value is a fundamental economic practice),
wherein the wager comprises blockchain tokens, and blockchain tokens are configured to include ranking data, and the ranking system ranks the first party and second party based on at least the outcome of the digital match, the outcome of the wager, and the play data (valuing a competitor based on his or her record is an evaluation and judgment; issuing a transferable instrument representing that value is a fundamental economic practice).”
Each of these acts (under the limitations) is one that a person, or a group of people could perform without a computer. Each dependent claim incorporates the abstract idea of the claim from which it depends. Dependent claims 3-7, 9, 11-16, 18, and 20 further recite the abstract idea groupings identified above:
conducting the digital match via a digital video game … and updating composite rankings, wherein the composite rankings are determined across a plurality of digital video games (mental process: evaluation),
determining a ranking of at least one of the first party and the second party based the outcome of the wager (certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, specifically fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interactions in the form of a wagering transaction and its settlement, and sales activities or business relations; mental process: evaluation),
updating a cumulative rankings according to the outcome of the wager, wherein the cumulative rankings include a plurality of parties … determining a top party according to the cumulative rankings …and providing a reward to the top party, wherein the reward is one of a sponsorship or extra funds (certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, specifically fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interactions in the form of a wagering transaction and its settlement, and sales activities or business relations),
maintaining the wager funds in escrow until the outcome of the digital match is determined (certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, specifically fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interactions in the form of a wagering transaction and its settlement, and sales activities or business relations),
wherein the wager comprises funds are block chain funds or distributed ledger based funds (certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, specifically fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interactions in the form of a wagering transaction and its settlement, and sales activities or business relations),
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 (certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, specifically fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interactions in the form of a wagering transaction and its settlement, and sales activities or business relations),
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 rankings are computed based on one or more metrics of the digital match, and wherein the rankings reflect a level of skill of the first party or the second party (mental process: evaluation),
conducting the digital match via a digital video game … updating composite rankings, wherein the composite rankings are determined across a plurality of digital video games (mental process: evaluation),
determining a ranking of at least one of the first party and the second party based the outcome of the wager (mental process: evaluation),
updating a cumulative rankings according to the outcome of the wager, wherein the cumulative rankings include a plurality of parties …determining a top party according to the cumulative rankings … providing a reward to the top party, wherein the reward is one of a sponsorship or extra funds (certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, specifically fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interactions in the form of a wagering transaction and its settlement, and sales activities or business relations; mental process: evaluation),
maintaining the wager funds in escrow until the outcome of the digital match is determined (certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, specifically fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interactions in the form of a wagering transaction and its settlement, and sales activities or business relations),
wherein the wager funds are block chain funds or distributed ledger based funds (certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, specifically fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interactions in the form of a wagering transaction and its settlement, and sales activities or business relations),
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 (certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, specifically fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interactions in the form of a wagering transaction and its settlement, and sales activities or business relations),
wherein the at least one wager is are held in escrow until the outcome of the digital match is determined (certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, specifically fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interactions in the form of a wagering transaction and its settlement, and sales activities or business relations).
The steps/limitations identified above are akin to a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, and thus falls within the groupings of abstract ideas. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
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.
The additional elements of the claim include a gaming server, blockchain token, a ranking system, and/or a wager portal. The gaming server, wager portal, and ranking system are recited at the highest level of generality and the specification describes them in corresponding generic terms. They amount to no more than generic computer components invoked as tools to carry out the abstract idea. This is “apply it” 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.
Additionally, under the Berkheimer standard, the Examiner takes the position that the elements were well-understood, routine, and conventional, supported by the following:
“recording wagers and wager records on a blockchain or distributed ledger” – including hashes and tokens, Warren, US 2021/0065516 A1 at paras. [0040], [0045].
Blockchain tokens as units of value in a gaming environment, held in a user wallet, managed by smart contracts, and read from and written to a blockchain ledger during and after gameplay, including across a plurality of different games, Weiksner, US 11,189,131.
Capture and streaming replay of e-sports gameplay video: Paradise-2, 9,479,602 at Col. 6:2-42.
Applicant’s own specification supports this position in the way it describes blockchain and ledger technology in terms of its known and inherent features/properties rather than describing any modification to that technology.
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pages 8-10, Applicant argues that “[0004]-[0007] and [0031] of the published application describes improving network architecture and data pipelines by providing a programmatic and trustless architecture that is secure and immutable …. Notably, [0006] identifies technical deficiencies of the prior art in security, validation, and stability” recites improvements that are fundamentally technical improvements because they are specifically directed to the underlying technology and architecture of the system, and how those underlying elements function and operate” and “specifically, regarding independent claims 1, 10, and 19 recite a specific technical architecture that provides a technical improvement in the art, particularly to the functionality of computers and networks.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Even accepting that the specification describes a technical improvement, the claims do not reflect this. The specification’s asserted improvements – trust settlement, immutability, etc. – are properties that use of a blockchain would supply. They are not attributable to anything the claims add to the blockchain technology, because the claims add nothing to the blockchain technology. A claim that obtains a benefit solely because it invokes a known technology having that benefit is not claiming an improvement to that technology; it is claiming a use of it. See Customedia Techs, LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (an improvement in the abstract idea itself, or the use of a computer as a tool to obtain its ordinary benefits, is not a technological improvement).
Applicant argues that “For instance, in conventional payment/ranking systems, transaction records can be altered, disputed, or reversed (e.g., chargebacks). By using blockchain tokens, the data structures storing wager and ranking information are secure and immutable.” The problem identified – chargebacks and reversal of wagering payouts – is a financial and commercial problem, and the asserted solution is the substitution of one payment medium for another processing a known and desired property. That is a business improvement obtained through the selection of a known tool. In addition, Applicant’s argument of a losing party who “could disconnect from the network, leaving the wager in limbo” is a similar description of a commercial risk – counterparty default – not a technical defect in a computer or network. The claim does not recite any disconnection detection type mechanism that would address this problem.
On page 10, Applicant argues that, as in Bascom Global, individually conventional elements are combined in an unconventional arrangement. However, Examiner finds that Bascom is distinguishable. The inventive concept in Bascom was a specific identifiable architectural choice: placing a content-filtering tool at a remote ISP server while retaining user-customizable filtering, an arrangement that achieved a benefit – individually customizable filtering at a location that could not be circumvented by the user – that neither local filtering nor conventional remote filtering could achieve. The claim recited where the element was located in the network and how the resulting arrangement operated.
Here by contrast, the asserted “unconventional arrangement” is that a token serves dual function, as both a financial instrument and a container for ranking data. But the claim recites that duality only as a result: the tokens “are configured to include ranking data.” There is no recitation of a specific architecture – no token standard, no field structure, no mechanism by which ranking data is written to or read from the token, no specification of which note or layer performs which operation. An assertion that two functions are combined is not the same as a particular arrangement of components that produces a technical result.
On pages 10-11, Applicant argues that as in Enfish, … “the value algorithm and tokenization of gaming data sets constitute a specific improvement to how the system processes and structures data, particularly ranking data.” Here, Enfish is also distinguishable. In Enfish, the claims recited a specific self-referential table in which the table’s own rows defined its columns, which the specification tied to concrete technical benefits including faster searching, more effective storage, and the ability to configure the database on the fly. The improvement in Enfish was to the structure of the data, and that structure was in the claim.
Here the claims recite tokens “are configured to include ranking data.” That is a statement about the content stored, not the structure in which it is stored. Storing data on a blockchain is the ordinary and intended function of a blockchain; putting a different kind of value into that ordinary storage does not improve the storage mechanism. Nothing in the claims specifies a novel data structure, or any change to how data is organized on the ledger. The paragraphs which Applicant’s cites from the specification in paragraphs [0048]-[0049] describes value algorithm functionally rather than by its operation.
On page 10, Applicant argues “Simply, the use of blockchain tokens improve how the computer system itself functions, specifically, to data integrity, settlement automation, and architectural integration of the distributed networking systems, not merely improvements to the user's experience. While these improvements may be felt by the user in their interaction with the system, these improvements are to the underlying technology. For example, an improved memory structure of a computer system is also an improvement to the user's experience, i.e., providing faster memory access and overall speed of the computing environment. However, these improvements are fundamentally technical improvements because they are specifically directed to the underlying technology and architecture of the system, and how those underlying elements function and operate.”
The Examiner agrees with the general proposition and does not maintain the rejection on the ground that the benefit is experienced by a user. An improved memory structure is an improvement to memory. The claims here do not improve blockchain, the gaming server, nor does it improve the network. They each operate in their ordinary capacity to carry out the wagering and ranking scheme.
Therefore, the 101 rejection is hereby maintained.
Conclusion
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
/JAMES B HULL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights