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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that there are no claimed abstract ideas. Examiner disagrees with this characterization of the claims and notes that the abstract ideas in the claims have been noted below.
Applicant argues that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, Applicant cites no portions of the MPEP to support this conclusion. Examiner disagrees and notes that the asserted improvement does not align with the indicia provided in the MPEP noted below and as such the claims remain patent ineligible.
Applicant argues that Yeh does not provide for a modifiable user profile, Applicant does not construe any claim limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard to support this argument. Examiner disagrees and notes that the means of user modification are not detailed in the claims and Yeh’s user interaction based modification of the profile meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception. The claims will be analyzed with respect to the Subject Matter Eligibility Test at MPEP§2106.
Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 1 (see MPEP§2106.03)
The claims recite one of the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 2A Prong 1 (see MPEP§2106.04(a-c))
The claims recite abstract ideas in the following categories;
Methods of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); (MPEP§2106.04(a)(2)II) (hereinafter “MOHA”).
Mental processes (MPEP§2106.04(a)(2)III) (hereinafter “MP”).
The abstract ideas have been noted in the claims below.
Regarding claim 1, a method for operating an entertainment venue (MP, MOHA – see standard operating procedures and memories/skills of employees), comprising:
receiving a personal user identifier from a user at the entertainment venue based on the received personal user identifier (MP, MOHA – asking someone’s name or for an ID number/ remembering someone);
retrieving a profile that is a previously created profile of the user, created by the user and modifiable by the user (MP, MOHA – remembering someone or pulling up their file),
wherein the profile includes information on the user's preferences and/or past experiences with the entertainment venue (MP, MOHA – remembering someone or pulling up their file);
providing entertainment venue data controlling and communicating with entertainment elements at the entertainment venue (MP, MOHA – remembering a patron’s preferences or having a paper profile of the person);
causing performance of a physical action by the one or more entertainment elements based at least in part on the previously created (MP, MOHA – remembering a patron’s preferences or having a paper profile of the person and acting on those preferences).
Regarding claim 2, the method of claim 1 wherein the first computer monitors the position/location of the user and executes the control instructions based on a position or a location of the guest in the entertainment venue (MP, MOHA – remembering to offer or having a procedure to offer patrols services or good based on a position).
Regarding claim 3, this claim recites abstract ideas as noted above.
Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 2A Prong 2 (see MPEP§2106.04(d))
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are generic computer hardware; insignificant extra solution activity such as collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data; and the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer. These additional elements individually and in combination provide for limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These additional elements (1) add “insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g)” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) and (2) generally link “the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I).
These additional elements individually and in combination are not limitations that provide for “improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) apply or use the “judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) implement the “judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) effect “a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) or apply or use “the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I). As such the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 2B (see MPEP§2106.05)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional generic computer hardware and insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP§2106.05).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. 2019/0217194 by Yeh.
Regarding claim 1, Yeh discloses a method for operating an entertainment venue (abstract), comprising:
receiving, at a first computer, a personal user identifier from a user at the entertainment venue based on the received personal user identifier (para. 4 – see profile access and association with an individual);
retrieving a profile that is a previously created profile of the user, created by the user and modifiable by the user, from a computer memory of the first computer (para. 4 – see profile access),
wherein the profile includes information on the user's preferences and/or past experiences with the entertainment venue (para. 4-6 – see profile access and updating based on events and user inputs);
providing entertainment venue data to the first computer, with the first computer controlling and communicating with entertainment elements at the entertainment venue (para. 18-20 – see user information that is provided to the environment for use; para. 46-48 – see control system computers);
the first computer: generating a set of control instructions for controlling the entertainment elements, based on the previously created profile and the entertainment venue data; temporarily storing the control instructions; transmitting the control instructions to one or more of the entertainment elements, thereby causing performance of a physical action by the one or more entertainment elements based at least in part on the previously created (para. 34-36 – see control of haptic sensors based on profile information); and
communicating entertainment venue data, including data reflecting the physical action or user participation at the entertainment venue, from the first computer to a remote second computer via a wide area network or a local area network (para. 18-20 – see communication via wireless communication system).
Regarding claim 2, Yeh discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the first computer monitors the position/location of the user and executes the control instructions based on a position or a location of the guest in the entertainment venue (para. 34 – see monitoring player location).
Regarding claim 3, Yeh discloses this claim as noted above regarding claim 1, with the offsite synchronization and control elements being disclosed at para. 28-31 and 45-47, see at least the restaurant interactions.
Regarding claim 4, Yeh discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the second computer communicates the previously created profile or the system data back to the first computer (para. 45-47 – see synchronization).
Regarding claim 5, Yeh discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the second computer communicates the previously created profile or the system data to the attraction user via a smart phone of the attraction user (para. 22 – see mobile devices).
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 PETER J IANNUZZI whose telephone number is (571)272-5793. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-5:30PM EST.
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, EUGENE KIM can be reached at 571-272-4463. 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.
/PETER J IANNUZZI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights