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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 12 are amended.
Claims 1 – 20 are 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.
This subject matter eligibility analysis follows the latest guidance for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claims 1 - 11 are drawn to a system
Claims 12 - 20 are drawn to a method.
Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1: Does the Claim recite an Abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Claim 1 - 9 are exemplary because they require substantially the same operative limitations of the remaining claims (reproduced below.) Examiner has underlined the claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, discussed in detail in the paragraphs that follow.
1. A system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to a receipt of data associated with an identification of a first parlay sporting event wager placeable via a first quantity of inputs by a followed user, cause the processor to:
communicate data that results in a display, by a first display device and to a first following user, of the first parlay sporting event wager, wherein the first following user had a relationship, initiated by the following user, with the followed user prior to the identification of the first parlay sporting event wager,
responsive to a receipt, by an input device, of a second, lower quantity of inputs made by the first following user, cause a placement of a second parlay sporting event wager, wherein the second, lower quantity of inputs is associated with less determinations, by the processor, to place the second parlay sporting event wager than a quantity of determinations to place the first parlay sporting event wager, and
communicate data that results in a display, by a second display device and to the followed user, of a shared sporting event wager compensation, wherein the followed user having a relationship established prior to the identification of the first parlay sporting event wager, with a first quantity of following users is associated with a first shared sporting event wager compensation and the followed user having a relationship, prior to the identification of the first parlay sporting event wager, with a second, different quantity of following users is associated with a second, different shared sporting event wager compensation.
The claims recite italicized limitations that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, namely, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity
More specifically, under this grouping, the italicized limitations represent fundamental economic principles or practices, and managing interactions between people. For example, the italicized limitations are directed the placement of wagers and compensating bettors according to a prescribed relationship to another bettor. This represents a fundamental economic practice, namely, exchanging consideration based on odds and outcomes. This also falls under the grouping of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
Although the claims recite additional limitations, these limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require additional limitations as follow, (emphasis added): “…communicate data that results in a display, by a first display device...”, “…responsive to a receipt, by an input device, of…”, and “…communicate data that results in a display, by a second display device…”
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, since the additional limitations, individually or in combination, are indistinguishable from a computer used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, the analysis continues to Step 2B, below.
Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, as pointed out above, the claimed invention recites additional elements facilitating implementation of the abstract idea. Applicant has claimed a processor, a memory, a display device and an input device. However, all of these elements viewed individually and as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
As the Alice court cautioned, citing Flook, patent eligibility cannot depend simply on the draftsman’s art. Here, amending the claims with generic computing elements does not (in this Examiner’s opinion), confer eligibility.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Bradford (US 6,612,928) establishes that these additional elements are generic: Game device 100 includes the normal and well known internals needed in order to have a functioning game, such as at least one central processor, associated memory, input/output interfaces, peripheral interfaces to the video display, control buttons and lever, monetary input devices, slot machine interface board (SMIB), together with the firmware and software needed to implement the full functionality of the game (these internals not shown). Game device 100 comprises a conventional game of chance, such as a slot machine, video poker machine, video lottery device, keno machine, or bingo machine. The gaming device 100 may alternatively comprise a live table game of chance, such as a blackjack table or roulette table, where the functions described herein carried out by the gaming device are carried out by a table attendant. (Bradford 8:22 – 33).
Therefore, these elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Moreover, the claims do not recite improvements to another technology or technical field. Nor, do the claims improve the functioning of the underlying computer itself -- they merely recite generic computing elements. Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing: the underlying computing elements remain the same.
Concerning preemption, the Federal Circuit has said in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of cffDNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
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) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Deguara (US 2018/0174128).
As per claim 10, Deguara discloses:
a processor; and (Deguara discloses a processor and a memory device) (Deguara Fig 3B)
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: (Deguara discloses a processor and a memory device) (Deguara Fig 3B)
responsive to an occurrence of a followed user identification event prior to a placement of a sporting event wager associated with a followed user, determine, based on a sporting event wager parameter selected by a following user, if a sporting event wager associated with a followed user qualifies as a designated sporting event wager, wherein the following user had a relationship, initiated by the following user, with the followed user prior to the followed user identification event (Deguara disclose a secondary bettor being able to see advertised bets (qualifying wagers) upon an event (Deguara 0192 – 0195), wherein the secondary bettor may follow the primary bettors wager and copy the wager by submitting a back bet) (Deguara 0196). The Examiner notes that regarding the “relationship” between the followed and following users, Deguara discloses a system wherein a primary bettor (i.e. followed user) registers with the game system and explicitly provided consent to share their betting information with secondary bettors (i.e. following users). Deguara also discloses that the secondary bettors (i.e. following users) must also register with the system in order to use the backbetting server (Deguara 0087 – 0098). The Examiner notes that the term “relationship” is not defined in the Applicants specification and further the term carries the definition of “the way in which two or more things or people are connected : the state of being related or interrelated (Mirriam-Webster). The Examiner notes that by virtue of both the primary bettor and the secondary bettor registering to use the backbetting system, they are indeed in a “relationship” with one another wherein this relationship is indeed initiated by the secondary user when they register with the backbetting service.)
following the placement of the first sporting event wager by the followed user and responsive to the sporting event wager associated with the followed user not qualifying as the designated sporting event wager, enable the following user to make a first quantity of inputs to place the sporting event wager independent of any display of the sporting event wager being associated with the followed user, wherein responsive to the following user placing the sporting event wager, no compensation is owed to the followed user in association with the placement of the sporting event wager, and (Deguara discloses that a secondary bettor when presented with potential back bets based upon a primary bettor’s bets, may decide to change the betting selected presented from the primary bettors and choose another outcome in the same event (i.e. the secondary better determines a primary bettor’s selection does not qualify). Deguara discloses “Should a secondary bettor 120 decide to change the betting selection presented, from the primary bettor 120, as displayed in the bet slip, and choose another outcome in the same betting event, a remuneration bet is placed using a fraction of the secondary bettor's stake for a generic account. Winnings from this account can be distributed in the Settle Bets process (s16).” (Deguara 0126). When this happens the primary bettor does not receive remuneration or compensation owed.)
following the placement of the first sporting event wager by the followed user via a first quantity of inputs and responsive to the first sporting event wager associated with the followed user qualifying as the designated sporting event wager: communicate data which results in a display, by a display device, of the sporting event wager being associated with the followed user, and enable the following user to make a second, lower quantity of inputs to place the sporting event wager, wherein the second, lower quantity of inputs is associated with less determinations, by the processor, to place the second sporting event wager than a quantity of determinations to place the first sporting event wager, and (Deguara discloses a primary bettor making a first wager based upon a first quantity of inputs such as by selecting at least an event to bet upon, a comment and at least an input related to a stake amount (Deguara 0188-0190). Deguara discloses secondary bettor committing to a series of future bets by entering the quantity of consecutive bets, the stake amount (Deguara 00236). The system registers a primary bettors’ inputs of a first quantity of at least three inputs to make a betting selection for each bet, wherein the “The primary bettor 110 transmits an intention to bet by clicking or tapping the odds according to a betting selection for which the primary bettor 110 wishes to bet.” (Deguara 0189), “The primary bettor 110 adds a stake amount (FIG. 10, ref 51) and confirms the bet (FIG. 10, ref 52) by actioning the CONFIRM BET screen button indicated.” (Deguara 0190). As can be seen and understood when this is applied to the example of future bets, the primary bettor must do this for each singular bet made in a series of consecutive bets (i.e. first quantity of inputs) and the secondary better merely commit to a series of future bets by entering the quantity of consecutive bets and the stake amount (second lesser quantity of input. The Examiner notes that if they secondary bettor makes a bet with a lesser quantity of inputs, that by also by extension correlates to the processor also processing less inputs (i.e. making less processor determinations).
wherein responsive to the following user placing the sporting event wager, an amount of compensation is owed to the followed user in association with the placement of the sporting event wager by the following user. (Deguara discloses the displaying of compensation to the primary bettor based upon how much remuneration they will receive for a secondary user utilizing their betting picks such as when their bets are used for a series of consecutive future bets) (Deguara 0225 – 0227). Depending on how many different secondary users (i.e. first or second quantities of users making future bets) utilize a primary bettor information, the system will display shared compensation in the form of a returned stake based on enhance odds to the primary user ( Deguara 0225-0227, 0231 - 0234)
As per claim 11, Deguara discloses:
wherein the sporting event wager associated with the followed user qualifies as the designated sporting event wager based on the followed user making the first quantity of inputs to place the sporting event wager. (Deguara discloses The system registering a primary bettor’s inputs of a first quantity of at least three inputs to make a betting selection for each bet, wherein the “The primary bettor 110 transmits an intention to bet by clicking or tapping the odds according to a betting selection for which the primary bettor 110 wishes to bet.” (Deguara 0189), “The primary bettor 110 adds a stake amount (FIG. 10, ref 51) and confirms the bet (FIG. 10, ref 52) by actioning the CONFIRM BET screen button indicated” (Deguara 0190). The primary bettors wager based upon those first quantity of inputs is qualified to be advertised to secondary bettors (Deguara 0129, 0191-0195
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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 7 – 9, 12 - 14 and 18 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deguara (US 2018/0174128) in view of Lyons et al (US 2014/0302915)
As per claim 1, Deguara discloses:
a processor; and (Deguara discloses a processor and a memory device) (Deguara Fig 3B)
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to a receipt of data associated with an identification of a first … sporting event wager placeable via a first quantity of inputs by a followed user, cause the processor to: (Deguara discloses a primary bettor making a first wager based upon a first quantity of inputs such as by selecting at least an event to bet upon, a comment and at least an input related to a stake amount) (Deguara 0188-0190)
communicate data that results in a display, by a first display device and to a first following user, of the first … sporting event wager, wherein the first following user had a relationship initiated by the following user with the followed user prior to the identification of the first … sporting event wager, (Deguara discloses the communication of a primary bettors bet selection to a secondary bettor as a back-bet) (Deguara 0192 – 0195). Deguara discloses secondary users can select a primary bettor to make future bets upon in advance of the primary bettor making the bet. Thus the secondary bettor can create a “relationship” with the primary bettor by essentially following and copying their bet patterns.) (Deguara 0236-0242) The Examiner notes that regarding the “relationship” between the followed and following users, Deguara discloses a system wherein a primary bettor (i.e. followed user) registers with the game system and explicitly provided consent to share their betting information with secondary bettors (i.e. following users). Deguara also discloses that the secondary bettors (i.e. following users) must also register with the system in order to use the backbetting server (Deguara 0087 – 0098). The Examiner notes that the term “relationship” is not defined in the Applicants specification and further the term carries the definition of “the way in which two or more things or people are connected : the state of being related or interrelated (Mirriam-Webster). The Examiner notes that by virtue of both the primary bettor and the secondary bettor registering to use the backbetting system, they are indeed in a “relationship” with one another wherein this relationship is indeed initiated by the secondary user when they register with the backbetting service.)
responsive to a receipt, by an input device, of a second, lower quantity of inputs made by the first following user, cause a placement of a second … sporting event wager, wherein the second, lower quantity of inputs is associated with less determinations, by the processor, to place the second parlay sporting event wager than a quantity of determinations to place the first parlay sporting event wager, and (Deguara discloses secondary bettor committing to a series of future bets by entering the quantity of consecutive bets, the stake amount (Deguara 00236). The system registers a primary bettors’ inputs of a first quantity of at least three inputs to make a betting selection for each bet, wherein the “The primary bettor 110 transmits an intention to bet by clicking or tapping the odds according to a betting selection for which the primary bettor 110 wishes to bet.” (Deguara 0189), “The primary bettor 110 adds a stake amount (FIG. 10, ref 51) and confirms the bet (FIG. 10, ref 52) by actioning the CONFIRM BET screen button indicated.” (Deguara 0190). As can be seen and understood when this is applied to the example of future bets, the primary bettor must do this for each singular bet made in a series of consecutive bets (i.e. first quantity of inputs) and the secondary better merely commit to a series of future bets by entering the quantity of consecutive bets and the stake amount (second lesser quantity of input. The Examiner notes that if they secondary bettor makes a bet with a lesser quantity of inputs, that by also by extension correlates to the processor also processing less inputs (i.e. making less processor determinations).
communicate data that results in a display, by a second display device and to the followed user, of a shared sporting event wager compensation, wherein the followed user having a relationship, established prior to the identification of the first … sporting event wager with a first quantity of following users is associated with a first shared sporting event wager compensation and the followed user having a relationship, prior to the identification of the first …sporting event wager, with a second, different quantity of following users is associated with a second, different shared sporting event wager compensation. (Deguara discloses the displaying of compensation to the primary bettor based upon how much remuneration they will receive for a secondary user utilizing their betting picks such as when their bets are used for a series of consecutive future bets) (Deguara 0225 – 0227). Depending on how many different secondary users (i.e. first or second quantities of users making future bets) utilize a primary bettor information, the system will display shared compensation in the form of a returned stake based on enhance odds to the primary user ( Deguara 0225-0227, 0231 - 0234)
Deguara fails to discloses that the wager is a parlay type wager.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Lyons discloses a wagering system that enables a player to make parlay type wagers (Lyons 0409, claims 4 and 18).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Deguara in view of Lyons to use a known technique to modify similar devices in the same way by providing a system that enables user to make wagers upon sporting events wherein the wagers are parlay wagers. The use of parlay wagers would be beneficial as an effective way to modify the odds of a user’s wager winning. Further Deguara discloses “The present invention relates to the field of betting technologies, and more particularly electronic betting transactions for sports betting, horse racing, harness racing, greyhound racing and other betting events where there is more than one possible outcome from a race, match, program or scenario. (Deguara 0001). Parlay wagers have been used in horse racing for years as is well-known by one of ordinary skill in the art.
As per claim 2, Deguara discloses:
wherein a portion of the shared sporting event wager compensation is contributed by the first following user. (Deguara discloses a fraction of the secondary bettors stake is used to remunerate the primary bettor) (Deguara 0050).
As per claim 3, wherein the portion is contributed responsive to the placement of the second parlay sporting event wager. (Combination of Deguara and Lyons wherein Deguara discloses a fraction of the secondary bettor’s stake made in a wager is used to remunerate the primary bettor) (Deguara 0050).
As per claim 7, wherein the first parlay sporting event wager and the second parlay sporting event wager are different parlay sporting event wagers. (Combination of Deguara and Lyons, wherein Deguara discloses a primary and secondary bettor placing wagers, thus the sporting event wagers are different sporting event wagers as they are specific to each player with differing stakes and odds) (Deguara 0050, 0106)
As per claim 8, wherein the data associated with the identification of the first parlay sporting event wager comprises data associated with a placement of the first parlay sporting event wager. (Combination of Deguara and Lyons, wherein Deguara discloses data associated with a primary bettor identifying and placing first wager on a betting event) (Deguara 0036)
As per claim 9, wherein the identification of the first parlay sporting event wager is based on that first parlay sporting event wager satisfying a condition associated with at least one of a sporting event, odds associated with the first parlay sporting event wager, and a payout associated with the first parlay sporting event wager. (Combination of Deguara and Lyons, wherein Deguara discloses data associated with a primary bettor identifying and placing first wager on a betting event that is further associated with odds and a payout) (Deguara 0036, 0039, 0050, 0158)
Independent claim(s) 12 is/are made obvious by the combination of Deguara and Lyons based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 1, which are similar in claim scope.
Dependent claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are made obvious by the combination of Deguara and Lyons based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 2 and 3, which are similar in claim scope.
Dependent claim(s) 18 - 20 is/are made obvious by the combination of Deguara and Lyons based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 7-9, which are similar in claim scope.
Claim(s) 4 – 6 and 15 - 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deguara (US 2018/0174128) in view of Lyons et al (US 2014/0302915) in view of Snow et al (US 2017/0270752)
As per claim 4, Deguara fails to disclose:
wherein the shared sporting event wager compensation comprises a non-monetary compensation.
However in a similar field of endeavor, Snow teaches a game system that compensates a user in the form of non-monetary compensation (Snow 0027)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Deguara in view of Snow to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way by compensating user in the form of non-monetary compensation. This would be an effective way for a game establishment to offer awards or compensation while not losing profitability by issuing currency or money.
As per claim 5, wherein the non-monetary compensation comprises at least one of a quantity of player tracking points and a quantity of promotional credits. (Combination of Deguara in view of Snow as applied to claim 4, wherein Snow discloses the use of promo credits and tracking points) (Snow 0027-0028, 0187, 0190).
As per claim 6, wherein the shared sporting event wager compensation comprises an opportunity to randomly win an amount of monetary compensation. (Combination of Deguara in view of Snow as applied to claim 4, wherein Snow discloses the use of awarding further play of a game associated with a random outcome) (Snow 0027-0028, 0187, 0190).
Dependent claim(s) 15-17 is/are made obvious by the combination of Deguara Lyons and Snow based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 4-6 respectively, which are similar in claim scope.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant states:
“Applicant respectfully disagrees and submits that the Office's explanation of the relationship between a secondary bettor and a primary bettor in Deguara, which is purported to be established prior to the placement or identification of a sporting event wager is improper since a relationship requires that two or more parties act in concert with each other. In this case, a primary bettor that advertises their bets to secondary bettors creates a relationship, at best, between the primary bettor and an advertiser (or even a gaming system operator) because the primary bettor is acting in concert with the advertiser (or the gaming system operator) to have their bets advertised. Such an advertisement does not create a relationship between the primary better and a secondary bettor who happens to be viewing the advertisement and is thus not acting in concert with the primary bettor.” (Remarks page 8).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicants interpretation of what a “relationship” constitutes. According to Mirriam-Websters online dictionary “Relationship” is “the way in which two or more things or people are connected : the state of being related or interrelated” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/relationship). It appears that the Applicant is interpreting the term relationship to be much narrower than the term actually means. The Examiner notes that all that by the very nature of the primary bettor and secondary bettor registering with the backbetting service to enable the advertising and copying of bets, both bettors are in a relationship or are connected to one another in some form or fashion. If not then they would not be able to advertise their bets or copy the bets of one another. Further, the Examiner notes that the specification fails to define the word “relationship” to mean anything other than the standard definition of the word. As a matter of fact, the Examiner cannot even find a single reference in the specification wherein the word “relationship” is used or specified. (If the Examiner is mistaken, the Examiner invites correction). So to imply or allege that the term should be defined in any other way other than the broadest and reasonable definition of the word, would be incorrect. Further by the secondary bettor registering with the backbetting service, the secondary better “initiates” to have a connection or relationship with the primary bettors in order to copy their bet or wagers. The Examiner maintains the rejection.
Regarding the rejection of the claims in view of 35 U.S.C. 101, the Applicant argues “More specifically and as described in at least paragraphs [0014] to [0017] of the present application, in view of the different sporting event wagers available to be placed on or otherwise associated with different sporting events and further in view of the degree of relative complication associated with certain of such sporting event wagers, the claimed systems and methods enable a first following user to track the sporting event wagering activity (and specifically parlay sporting event wagering activity) associated with a followed user and further to act on such tracked activity to place the same sporting event wager without having to manually recreate the qualifying sporting event wager (which such users may not even know how to do). Such a configuration saves certain users time in the form of reducing the quantity of inputs made to place a sporting event wager, which in turn, leads to less wear and tear on the machines which receive sporting event wagers and thus prolongs the operational life of such machines.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the reduction of inputs to save a user time in entering the inputs to save a user time and thus reduce wear on a machine is not an improvement that Improves the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field. This equates to improving of a user’s experience while playing the game by enabling them to not to need to make multiple input decisions. The improvement of a user’s gaming experience is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or a computing technology. The Examiner maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5911. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 4pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/RAW/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
2/7/2026
/KANG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715