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
In response to the Amendment filed on June 4th, 2026, claims 1, 3, 10-12, and 14 have been amended. Claims 2, 5, 13, and 16 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-12, 14, 15, and 17-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-12, 14, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-9 are drawn to a system (machine).
Claims 10-11 are drawn to a system (machine).
Claims 12, 14, 15, and 17-20 are drawn to a method (process).
Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
However, under Step 2A, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The claims are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process.
Let us begin by considering the requirements of each independent claim:
Thus, let us take Claim 1 as exemplary:
A system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
communicate data that results in a display, by a display device, of a leaderboard comprising a plurality of ranked positions and a plurality of player identifiers associated with the plurality of ranked positions, and
responsive to an occurrence of an award triggering event:
enable at least a first player associated with a first player identifier of the plurality of player identifiers and a second player associated with a second player identifier of the plurality of player identifiers to participate in a competition, wherein the first player identifier is associated with a first designated ranked position of the plurality of the ranked positions, the second player identifier is associated with a second, different designated ranked position of the plurality of the ranked positions, and the first player is assigned an advantage over at least the second player in the competition, wherein the first player identifier is associated with the first ranked position based on a first quantity of tracked occurrences of an event occurring independent of any play of any game and the second player identifier is associated with the second, different ranked position based on a second, different quantity of tracked occurrences of the event (mental process: observing and evaluating gameplay or other events to determine rankings),
determine, based at least in part on the assigned advantage, a winning player of the competition (mental process: observing and evaluating gameplay or other events to determine a winner), and
communicate data that results in a display, by the display device, of an award being made available to the winning player of the competition.
Under broadest reasonable interpretation, independent claims 1, 10, and 12 are directed to a mental process, aside from the reference to a generic computer or generic gaming components (e.g. a processor, a memory device, a display device).
The second prong of Step 2A, ask whether the claims recite additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Here, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 10, and 12 recite the additional elements of a processor, a memory device, and a display device, along with the step of communicating data that results in a display. The processor, memory device, and display device are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. a generic computer or gaming components performing generic computer functions like processing and displaying data) and do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because it amounts to simply invoking a computer or generic gaming components as a tool to perform an existing process in their ordinary capacity and/or generally linking the abstract idea to a technological environment. In other words, the claims invoke the processor, memory device, and display device merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional element of communicating data that results in a display is considered insignificant extra-solution activity related to transmitting data and does not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Step 2B asks whether a claimed invention which fails Step 2A contains an inventive concept, i.e. significantly more. Independent claims 1, 10, and 12 do not include additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the processor, memory device, and display device are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computer functions like processing and displaying data) and simply amount to implementing the abstract idea using a generic computer or gaming components. The additional elements that were considered insignificant pre-solution or extra-solution activity have been re-analyzed and do not amount to anything more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d), Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result--a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink AND Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93).
The combination of additional elements adds nothing that is not already present when considered separately. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims
Claims 3, 4, 6-9, 11, 14, 15, and 17-20 inherit the same abstract idea as claims 1, 10, and 12.
Claims 3, 4, 6-9, 11, 14, 15, and 17-20 recite further additional element limitations related to tracking event occurrences, determining probabilities, determining advantages, and competition and award types. These additional elements, under their BRI, fall within the mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity grouping(s) of abstract ideas and/or are additional elements that are considered insignificant pre-solution or extra-solution activities, and do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea and do not amount to anything more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional, as would flow naturally from the similar recitations discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 4th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the claims do not include elements which are performed as a mental process in the human mind or can be performed by a human using a pen and paper, the examiner disagrees. The limitation “enable at least a first player…” merely requires the observation and evaluation of two players to determine how they would be ranked on a leaderboard. This could be as simple as a pit boss observing two players at a blackjack table and tracking how many drinks they order (“an event occurring independent of any play of any game”), which could easily be done mentally by a human. Further, this step could also fall under certain methods of organizing human activity which includes managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people such as following rules or instructions where the management of the leaderboard and any associated advantage or disadvantage is governed by a particular set of rules as determined by the game operator. With respect to the communicating data steps, these are considered insignificant extra-solution activities related to transmitting data and does not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, “(3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).”).
Applicant also argues that the claimed invention provides an improved way to utilize leaderboards in association with competitions for awards. Applicant states that the invention provides players a more visual and intuitive competitive experience, enables players to invoke a degree of strategy or skill in determining how to interact with the system in relation to a leaderboard, and provides players more control in the participation of competitions in the participation of competitions via leaderboard rankings while further providing such players a tangible and relatively easily ascertainable advantage in a triggered competition that they qualify to participate in. However, it is not apparent from these conclusory statements how the claimed leaderboard differs from standard leaderboard functionality where relevant data is gathered to determine rankings which are then displayed to the players (see MPEP 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field, “Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology”). Further, players utilizing the leaderboard information in their gameplay is a subjective matter (i.e. different players may have different preferences) and not necessarily an improvement in the technology.
For these reasons, claims 1, 3, 4, 6-12, 14, 15, and 17-20 remain rejected in view of 35 USC 101.
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 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 ALLEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11:00 AM EST to 7:00 PM 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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/ALLEN CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 8/26/2026
Prosecution Insights