DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The following is a Final Office Action in response to remarks filed 23 January 2026.
Claims 1-22 are pending have been examined.
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 Arguments
Applicants argue that the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection under the Alice Corp. vs. CLS Bank Int’l be withdrawn; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that in order to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claims must be directed towards a patent eligible concept, which, the instant claims are not directed. Contrary to Applicants’ assertion that the claims are not a certain method of organizing human activity, the Examiner notes that facilitating competitions between people is a function that have traditionally performed/provided for people such as talent shows, competitions, tournaments, etc. Next, the claims are not directed to a practical application of the concept. The claims do not result in improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. They do not effect a particular treatment for a disease. They are not applied with or by a particular machine. They do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. And they are not applied in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception (i.e., publishing or organizing challenges between users) to a particular technological environment (i.e., over a network via generic computers or computing components). Here, again as noted in the previous rejection, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept - MPEP 2016.05(f). An abstract idea does not become non abstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (limiting an abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such as a computer, does not confer patent eligibility); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010) (“[L]imiting an abstract idea to one field of use . . . d[oes] not make the concept patentable.”). If it is determined that the patent is drawn to an abstract idea or otherwise ineligible subject matter, at a second step we ask whether the remaining elements, either in isolation or combination with the non-patent ineligible elements, are sufficient to “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1297 (2012)). Put another way, there must be an “inventive concept” to take the claim into the realm of patent eligibility. Id. at 2355. A simple instruction to apply an abstract idea on a computer is not enough. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (“[M]ere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible idea into a patent eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea ‘while adding the words “apply it’’ is not enough for patent eligibility.’” (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294)). Again, as noted in the previous rejection, the claims recitation of the “on the social network website” is only generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) discussing MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
This argument appears to be whether or not the use of computer or computing components for increased speed and efficiency makes the claims eligible; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nor, in addressing the second step of Alice, does claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer provide a sufficient inventive concept. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”); CLS Bank, Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“[S]imply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” (citations omitted)). As such the arguments are not persuasive and the rejection not overcome.
Applicant argues that the Jone reference does not disclose the “receiving a challenge that identifies a first user, a second user, and a task or activity which the first user is challenging the second user to perform; publishing the challenge on the social network website” however the Examiner respectfully disagrees for a plurality of reasons. Firstly, 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. Secondly, Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Thirdly, as previously cited, Jones does in fact discuss “FIG. 4A illustrates an example of a system 400 for facilitating a virtual competition environment 302. The system 400 may comprise a virtual competition component 202 that may be configured to provide one or more registered users, such as a first user, with access to the virtual competition environment 302. In an example, the first user may specify an interest in workout activities. Accordingly, the virtual competition component 202 may provide various workout activity assignments to the first user. In an example, an activity assignment (A) 404 may correspond to pull-ups and thrusters. In another example, an activity assignment (B) 406 may correspond to deadlifts and hang cleans. In another example, a user created activity 408 may correspond to jumping jacks (e.g., a second user, registered with the virtual competition environment 302, may create the user created activity 408 so that other users may participate in the user created activity 408). In another example, a user challenge activity 410 may correspond to a 5 mile run (e.g., the second user may challenge the first user to a 5 mile run, where the users may be given an opportunity to place credit bets or not on who will win). In another example, a challenge activity 412 may correspond to a 300 sit-up challenge between a first gym with which the first user is a member and a gym (F). In an example, at least one of the activity assignment (A) 404, the activity assignment (B) 406, the user created activity 408, the user challenge activity 410, and/or the challenge activity 412 may be provided to the first user for free. In another example, at least one of the activity assignment (A) 404, the activity assignment (B) 406, the user created activity 408, the user challenge activity 410, and/or the challenge activity 412 may be purchased by the first user using activity credits (Jones ¶33)” which is referring to Fig. 4A that is showing a social network component with activities/challenges posted or published to some sort of wall or feed. As such, this argument is not persuasive, and the rejection not overcome.
In response to arguments in reference to any depending claims that have not been individually addressed, all rejections made towards these dependent claims are maintained due to a lack of reply by the Applicants in regards to distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors in the Examiner's prior office action (37 CFR 1.111). The Examiner asserts that the Applicants only argue that the dependent claims should be allowable because the independent claims are unobvious and patentable over the prior art.
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 1-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are directed to a process (an act, or series of acts or steps), a machine (a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices), and a manufacture (an article produced from raw or prepared materials by giving these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand labor or by machinery). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (Step 1). However, the claim(s) recite(s) publishing or organizing challenges between users which is an abstract idea of organizing human activities.
The limitations of “receiving a challenge that identifies a first user, a second user, and a task or activity which the first user is challenging the second user to perform; forwarding the challenge to the second user; and in response to receiving an acceptance of the challenge from the second user, publishing the challenge,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organizing human activities--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) but for the recitation of generic computer components (Step 2A Prong 1). That is, other than reciting “A method of processing requests from a user system associated with a user profile in a database of a social network website, comprising:,” (or “An apparatus for processing requests from a user system associated with a user profile in a database of a social network website, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors and including program code that, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the apparatus to:” in claim 12 or “A computer program product for processing requests from a user system associated with a user profile in a database of a social network website, comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium; and program code stored on the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that, when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to:” in claim 20) nothing in the claim element precludes the step from the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. For example, but for the “A method of processing requests from a user system associated with a user profile in a database of a social network website, comprising:,” (or “An apparatus for processing requests from a user system associated with a user profile in a database of a social network website, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors and including program code that, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the apparatus to:” in claim 12 or “A computer program product for processing requests from a user system associated with a user profile in a database of a social network website, comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium; and program code stored on the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that, when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to:” in claim 20)” language, “receiving,” “forwarding,” and “publishing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually facilitating challenges or competitions which is managing personal behavior/activities such as tournaments, recreational sports, card games, contests etc. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as one of the methods of organizing human activities, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two). Method claim 1 is devoid of structure whatsoever and thus only amounts to an abstract idea. Next, claims 12 and 20 only recites one additional element – using one or more processors to perform the steps. The one or more processors in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of electronic data storage, query, and retrieval of challenges/invitations to challenges) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Specifically the claims amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or invoking computers as tools by 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 2106.04(d)(I) discussing MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recitation of the “on the social network website” is only generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) discussing MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the combination of these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea, even when considered as a whole (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
The claim does not include a combination of additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). Again, Method claim 1 is devoid of structure whatsoever and thus only amounts to an abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2), the combination of additional elements of using one or more processors to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim. As such, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible, even when considered as a whole (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 2-3, 10-11, 13, and 17-18 recite(s) the additional limitation(s) further including how to allow the users to challenge each other and votes for winning, which is still directed towards the abstract idea previously identified and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claims 1, 12, and 20, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 4, 7-9, 16, 19, and 21-22 recite the same abstract idea of “publishing or organizing challenges between users.” The claim(s) recite(s) the additional limitation(s) further limiting the type of information for a user profile which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claims 1, 12, and 20, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 5-6 and 14-15 recite the same abstract idea of “publishing or organizing challenges between users.” The claim(s) recite(s) the additional limitation(s) further including webpages and home pages for the challenges which is only generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) discussing MPEP 2106.05(h) and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claims 1, 12, and 20, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 1-22 are therefore not eligible subject matter, even when considered as a whole.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US PG Pub. 2015/0126333) and further in view of Engelberg et al. (US PG Pub. 2012/0290109).
As per claims 1, 12, and 20, Jones discloses method of processing requests from a user system associated with a user profile in a database of a social network website, an apparatus for processing requests from a user system associated with a user profile in a database of a social network website, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors and including program code that, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the apparatus to:, a computer program product for processing requests from a user system associated with a user profile in a database of a social network website, comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium; and program code stored on the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that, when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to: the method comprising (comprising processor-executable instructions configured to implement one or more of the techniques presented herein, Jones ¶42; processor, ¶44; user profiles, ¶22; mobile device, ¶4):
receiving a challenge that identifies a first user, a second user, and a task or activity which the first user is challenging the second user to perform (virtual competition, challenge invitation functionality, Jones ¶27; user created activity, ¶28; textual description describing performance of the first activity assignment, ¶22);
forwarding the challenge to the second user (challenge invitation functionality, Jones ¶27); and
publishing the challenge on the social network website (The virtual competition environment may comprise a social network and/or may be socially integrated into other social networks (e.g., a user may share activity results; challenge other users; send messages to users; etc.), Jones ¶3; so that others may participate, ¶33).
While Jones discloses the challenge invitation functionality, Jones does not expressly disclose in response to receiving an acceptance of the challenge from the second user.
However, Engelberg teaches in response to receiving an acceptance of the challenge from the second user (accept challenge, Engelberg ¶9 and ¶195-¶196; declined, ¶276).
Both the Engelberg and Jones references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with online or virtual competitions. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Engelberg’s ability to allow users to accept or decline invitations in Jones’ system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a competition management system that encourages and motivates users to compete with one another.
The motivation being that there is a need for increased motivation, wherein motivation may also result from achieving progress in an individual's fitness level. However, progress often involves increasing or otherwise altering a workout regimen. For example, individuals may start running faster or for longer periods of time to increase endurance. In some cases, individuals might repeat the same workout, thus failing to challenge themselves to improve on previous performances. Without being prompted to perform a more strenuous workout, an individual might not see results as quickly or at all and thus become unmotivated (Engelberg ¶3).
As per claims 2 and 13, Jones and Engelberg disclose as shown above with respect to claims 1 and 12. Jones further discloses searching the database for the user profile of the second user; validating the challenge based at least in part on information in the user profile of the second user; and only forwarding the challenge to the second user if the challenge is valid (In this way, users may compete against similarly skilled users when performing an activity assignment. Groups of users may compete against one other when performing activities, such as members of a first gym competing against members of a second gym, Jones ¶3; challenge invitation functionality, ¶27).
As per claim 3, Jones and Engelberg disclose as shown above with respect to claim 2. Jones further discloses wherein validating the challenge includes comparing skill levels of the first user and the second user, and only validating the challenge if the skill levels match (In this way, users may compete against similarly skilled users when performing an activity assignment. Groups of users may compete against one other when performing activities, such as members of a first gym competing against members of a second gym, Jones ¶3; challenge invitation functionality, ¶27).
As per claim 4, Jones and Engelberg disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Jones further discloses publishing the challenge includes posting information regarding the challenge on a home page of one or more users having profiles in the database, the challenge further identifies at least one of a time, a date, and a location for performing the task or activity, and the location is one of a geographic location or a virtual location (The virtual competition environment may comprise a social network and/or may be socially integrated into other social networks (e.g., a user may share activity results; challenge other users; send messages to users; etc.), Jones ¶3; so that others may participate, ¶33; textual description describing performance of the first activity assignment, ¶22; completion time, reps, sets, objective, ¶24-¶25).
As per claims 5 and 14, Jones and Engelberg disclose as shown above with respect to claims 4 and 12. Jones further discloses wherein the location is the virtual location, and further comprising: defining a webpage on the social network website which provides the virtual location for performing the task or activity; and transmitting a link to the webpage to the user system of each of the first user and the second user (Jones Fig. 5B [552] “Please submit a video for this activity,” ¶38-¶39).
As per claims 6 and 15, Jones and Engelberg disclose as shown above with respect to claims 1 and 12. Jones further discloses posting the challenge to a webpage of the social network website; and in response to a web browser visiting the webpage, displaying the challenge on a user interface of the web browser (The virtual competition environment may comprise a social network and/or may be socially integrated into other social networks (e.g., a user may share activity results; challenge other users; send messages to users; etc.), Jones ¶3; so that others may participate, ¶33; Fig. 4A [410] “User D challenged you to: Run 5 miles”).
As per claim 7, Jones and Engelberg disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Jones further discloses wherein each user profile defines at least one of a category, a subcategory, and a group associated with the user profile (In an example, activities may be facilitated between groups of users (e.g., a competition between gyms, bakeries, dance studios, schools, art studios, etc.). For example, a first user may be assigned to a first user group based upon the first user having membership to the first user group (e.g., the first user may belong to a first gym). A challenge activity may be generated between the first user group and a second user group (e.g., one or more registered users of a second gym). Activity results from the first user group may be ranked with activity results from the second user group to assign rankings to the first user group, the second user group, one or more users that are members with the first user group, and/or one or more users that are members with the second user group. In this way, users and/or groups of users may compete and/or be ranked against one another through the virtual competition environment. At 110, the method ends, Jones ¶29; workout challenge for a gym, ¶28; group can challenge another group, ¶27).
As per claims 8-9 and 16, Jones and Engelberg disclose as shown above with respect to claims 1 and 12. Jones further discloses further comprising: in response to the second user accepting the challenge, posting the challenge on the user profile of each of the first user and the second user; wherein each user profile includes a call-out record, and further comprising: in response to the challenge being completed, adding a result of the challenge to the call-out record of the user profile of each of the first user and the second user (share activity results to social networks, Jones ¶3; historical results and rankings of users, ¶4; in user profile, ¶22; The first activity result may be evaluated to assign a first activity rank for the first user with regard to the first activity assignment. In an example, a completion time and/or a number of repetitions/sets for a workout activity may be compared with activity results of other users (e.g., compared against a set of activity results received from one or more users within the first skill group, such as users within the same iteration of the first activity assignment that was provided to the first user), such that the first user may be ranked against the other users. In an example, the first activity result may be provided to a judge registered with the virtual competition environment (e.g., a certified workout user, a certified builder, a certified chef, a professor, a person having a relatively extensive knowledge basis with regard to an activity, etc.). For example, a video of the first activity result may be provided to the judge for evaluation of the video. In an example, an evaluation time limit may be provided to the judge. The evaluation time limit may specify a time by which the judge is to accept, reject, and/or assign an activity rank for the video. The judge may be instructed to verify that the first user utilized a valid video for the first activity assignment (e.g., verification of a clock within the video; verification of a user id spoken by the first user; verification of a technique used to perform the activity; etc.). In this way, the judge may evaluate the first activity result (e.g., through a judge review interface provided to the judge), which may be used to assign the first activity rank to the first user. If the judge rejects the video, then an appeal process may be facilitated for the first user (e.g., resubmission of the video to a new judge; additional verification for the video; etc.). The judge may be compensated for judging the video, such as with a credit used to participate in activities, a monetary reward, and/or a donation to a charity selected by the judge, ¶25).
As per claims 10 and 17, Jones and Engelberg disclose as shown above with respect to claims 1 and 12. Jones further discloses wherein the first user and the second user are part of a plurality of users, and further comprising: receiving one or more votes from the plurality of users regarding each voting user's selection of a winner of the challenge; and selecting the winner of the challenge based at least in part on the one or more votes received (The virtual competition component 202 may utilize judges 206 to evaluate and/or rank users that submit activity results for activity assignments (e.g., a judge (B) and a judge (D) may be available to evaluate activity results for an activity type (A) such as swimming activities; judge (A) and judge (M) may be available to evaluating activity results for an activity type (B) such as running activities; etc.). For example, video review data 216, such as user submitted videos of activity results, may be provided to judges for evaluation of activity results. The virtual competition component 202 may be configured to maintain reward data 218 corresponding to rewards (e.g., credits, charity donations, money) provided to users for participating in activities and/or to judges 206 for evaluating activity results. User profile data 220 may be maintain for users based upon performance of activity assignments (e.g., activity ranking information, activity results, etc.). The virtual competition component 202 may maintain social network data 214 through which users of the virtual competition environment may interact and/or share information, Jones ¶30).
As per claims 11 and 18, Jones and Engelberg disclose as shown above with respect to claims 10 and 17. Jones further discloses wherein a user must be a member of a group with which the challenge is associated in order to vote on the winner of the challenge (In an example, the first activity result may be provided to a judge registered with the virtual competition environment (e.g., a certified workout user, a certified builder, a certified chef, a professor, a person having a relatively extensive knowledge basis with regard to an activity, etc.), Jones ¶25).
As per claim 19, Jones and Engelberg disclose as shown above with respect to claim 12. Jones further discloses wherein the first user and the second user are part of a plurality of users, and the program code further causes the apparatus to: maintain a record for each user including one or more of challenges won, challenges lost, challenges that were a draw (activity results, historical activity results, Jones ¶3) (Examiner interprets all results as including draw or ties).
Engelberg further teaches (accepted, declined, invitee status, Engelberg ¶296-¶297).
As per claims 21 and 22, Jones and Engelberg disclose as shown above with respect to claims 1 and 12. Jones further discloses wherein each user profile includes a four digit win/loss/draw/decline (W-L-D-D) record for the user.
However, the Examiner asserts it would be obvious to post or publish said results (i.e. records) on a user profile, considering the Jones and Engelberg references track or monitor the activities/competitions, user rankings, as well as store the historical results (i.e. users’ records).
Therefore it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, because wherein each user profile includes a four digit win/loss/draw/decline (W-L-D-D) record for the user is a particular known technique of simply presenting the results for a user as part of their profile was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The Examiner also notes that the results or win/loss/draw/decline (W-L-D-D) record for the user are simply a design choice which would be obvious to try as there is a finite number of predictable types of profile information to provide on a user’s profile (See MPEP 2144.05.B).
Therefore it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention/before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include win/loss/draw/decline (W-L-D-D) record for the user as this is simply a design choice from a finite number of profile information to be displayed commonly used or are marketed successful.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 ANDREW B WHITAKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8am-5pm, EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on (571) 272-6782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-
automated- interview-request-air-form
/ANDREW B WHITAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629