DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to Applicant’s arguments and request for reconsideration of application 18/797,645 (08/08/24) filed on 03/09/26.
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 - 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
ALICE/ MAYO: TWO-PART ANALYSIS
2A. First, a determination whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Prong 1: A determination whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Prong 2: A determination whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Considerations indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using 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
Considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2B. Second, a determination whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., Whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
Considerations indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using 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 NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
Considerations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
See also, 2010 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; Federal Register; Vol. 84, No. 4; Monday, January 7, 2019
Claims 1 - 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim 1, is/are directed to a process (i.e. a method).
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention is involves receiving a user preference from a first user for maintaining an identity of the first user anonymous during an online game; tracking online game play involving the first user and storing the tracked online game play as game history data;
receiving a request from a second user to initiate the online game with the first user;
assigning a first anonymous identifier to the first user and a second anonymous identifier to the second user; retrieving game history data specific to the first user and the second user and classifying the first user within one of a plurality of preset tiers according to the retrieved game history data; retrieving at least one rule for controlling interactions between anonymous users and the second user in the gaming environment; disposing the request to initiate the online game with the first user based at least on the game history data and the at least one rule for controlling interactions between anonymous users and the second user; and executing the online game including at least the first user and the second user, including displaying of the executed online game operable by the second user; wherein display of a graphic representing the first user is altered according to which of the plurality of preset tiers the first user is classified within, which is a fundamental economic principles or practices (game play; controlling interactions between anonymous users); commercial or legal (game play; controlling interactions between anonymous users); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (receiving, tracking, assigning, retrieving, classifying, disposing, executing, displaying).
The mere nominal recitation of technology (e.g., “a gaming interface”/ “in the gaming interface”) does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Mental Processes
The claim recites limitations directed to receiving a user preference from a first user for maintaining an identity of the first user anonymous during an online game; tracking online game play involving the first user and storing the tracked online game play as game history data; receiving a request from a second user to initiate the online game with the first user; assigning a first anonymous identifier to the first user and a second anonymous identifier to the second user; retrieving game history data specific to the first user and the second user and classifying the first user within one of a plurality of preset tiers according to the retrieved game history data; retrieving at least one rule for controlling interactions between anonymous users and the second user in the gaming environment; disposing the request to initiate the online game with the first user based at least on the game history data and the at least one rule for controlling interactions between anonymous users and the second user; and executing the online game including at least the first user and the second user, including displaying of the executed online game operable by the second user; wherein display of a graphic representing the first user is altered according to which of the plurality of preset tiers the first user is classified within.
The limitation(s), as drafted, is/are a process that, under it’s broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. In other words, the claim encompasses the user manually receiving a user preference from a first user for maintaining an identity of the first user anonymous during an online game; tracking online game play involving the first user and storing the tracked online game play as game history data; receiving a request from a second user to initiate the online game with the first user; assigning a first anonymous identifier to the first user and a second anonymous identifier to the second user; retrieving game history data specific to the first user and the second user and classifying the first user within one of a plurality of preset tiers according to the retrieved game history data; retrieving at least one rule for controlling interactions between anonymous users and the second user in the gaming environment; disposing the request to initiate the online game with the first user based at least on the game history data and the at least one rule for controlling interactions between anonymous users and the second user; and executing the online game including at least the first user and the second user, including displaying of the executed online game operable by the second user; wherein display of a graphic representing the first user is altered according to which of the plurality of preset tiers the first user is classified within.
The mere nominal recitation of technology (e.g., “a gaming interface”/ “in the gaming interface”) does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. This/these limitation(s) recite a mental process. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea). Is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the combination of additional elements of “displaying” of “a gaming interface” and wherein “display of a graphic representing the first user” occurs “in the gaming interface”. The element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., performing the generic functions of (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving”, “retrieving”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (b) data processing (e.g., “tracking”, “assigning”, “disposing”, “executing”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (c) data storage (e.g., “storing”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (d) data display (e.g., “displaying”, etc. step(s) as claimed). The element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as general means of gathering data for game play), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The claims are silent regarding any explicit performance of the steps or acts by a machine or technology. Assuming for arguments sake that a machine or technology is contemplated, the claims are still recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the step(s). Accordingly, the element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification as filed 08/08/24 does not provide any indication that there is a machine or technology associated with the claimed invention and if a machine or technology is contemplated, it is anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Frenkel, Walker, Shaw and Rothschild operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving”, “retrieving”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (b) data processing (e.g., “tracking”, “assigning”, “disposing”, “executing”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (c) data storage (e.g., “storing”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (d) data display (e.g., “displaying”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving”, “retrieving”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (b) data processing (e.g., “tracking”, “assigning”, “disposing”, “executing”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (c) data storage (e.g., “storing”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (d) data display (e.g., “displaying”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Versata Dev. Group, OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate storing and retrieving information in memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). SAP America Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016 USPQ2d 1638 (Fed Cir. 2018) (displaying and disseminating financial information) and Intellectual Ventures 1 LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) (advanced internet interface providing user display access of customized web pages) indicate displaying information is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2 - 9 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims (e.g., product and process claims). Therefore, independent apparatus claim 10 is/are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as the method claims. The components (e.g., “a processor” and “a memory”) described in independent apparatus claim 10, add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. At best, the product (apparatus) recited in the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting
Withdrawn in light of applicant’s arguments and/ or amendments.
101
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1.Applicant argues the claimed invention is integrated into a practical application.
Applicant suggests the claimed invention presents a “practical application” because it provides (a) improvements in the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (e.g., “Thus, assigning users to tiers to facilitate anonymized matching, while clearly involving the judicial exception of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, does not simply recite the judicial exception. Therefore, under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, Prong 2, and MPEP 2106.05(a), these claims ‘reflect an improvement to [a] technical field’ and thus integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application.” See pg. 8 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 03/09/26.). The Examiner disagrees.
Applicant’s arguments suggesting the claimed invention (a) provides improvements in the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field suggests the applicant believes the technical aspects of the invention are substantial. There exists alternative perspectives however.
Conducting a wagering game is directed to the underlying abstract idea, not the functioning of the computer itself. What applicant is really arguing is the use of a computer as a tool or the benefits of automation itself.
The claimed invention invokes computers or other machinery (e.g., “a gaming interface”/ “in the gaming interface”) merely as a tool to perform an existing process (e.g., game play; controlling interactions between anonymous users) or uses a computer or other machinery (e.g., “a gaming interface”/ “in the gaming interface”) in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., game play; controlling interactions between anonymous users).
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception is not
not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP § 2106.05(f). Merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05(f).
The limitations relied upon are “insignificant extra-solution activity”. First, the role of the claimed device is limited to necessary data gathering and outputting (e.g., “receiving a user preference from a first user for maintaining an identity of the first user anonymous during an online game”; “receiving a request from a second user to initiate the online game with the first user”; “retrieving game history data specific to the first user and the second user …..” ; and “retrieving at least one rule for controlling interactions between anonymous users and the second user in the gaming environment”;) steps as claimed. Second, the limitations are not significant; and are only nominally or tangentially related to the claimed invention. For example, although invention involves a machine (e.g., “a gaming interface”/ “in the gaming interface”), the limitations involve selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated (e.g., “classifying the first user within one of a plurality of preset tiers according to the retrieved game history data”; and “executing the online game including at least the first user and the second user, including displaying ….. of the executed online game operable by the second user; wherein display of a graphic representing the first user ….. is altered according to which of the plurality of preset tiers the first user is classified within”.).
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (g).
Collecting information (e.g., “receiving a user preference from a first user for maintaining an identity of the first user anonymous during an online game”; “receiving a request from a second user to initiate the online game with the first user”; “retrieving game history data specific to the first user and the second user …..” ; and “retrieving at least one rule for controlling interactions between anonymous users and the second user in the gaming environment”;); analyzing it (e.g., “tracking online game play involving the first user …..”; “assigning a first anonymous identifier to the first user and a second anonymous identifier to the second user”; “classifying the first user within one of a plurality of preset tiers according to the retrieved game history data”; “disposing the request to initiate the online game with the first user based at least on the game history data and the at least one rule for controlling interactions between anonymous users and the second user; and executing the online game including at least the first user and the second user …..”;); and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (e.g., “displaying a gaming interface of the executed online game operable by the second user; wherein display of a graphic representing the first user in the gaming interface is altered according to which of the plurality of preset tiers the first user is classified within”.) merely indicates a field of use or technical environment in which to apply the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (h).
2.Applicant argues the claimed invention provides an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification as filed 08/08/24 does not provide any indication that there is a machine or technology associated with the claimed invention and if a machine or technology is contemplated, it is anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components, see at least para. [0051] [0052] [0053] [0055] [0059] [0069] [0114] [0115] [0116]. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Frenkel, US Pub. No. 2007/0015584; Walker, 6,110,041; Shaw, US Pub. No. 2006/0287099; and Rothschild, US Pub. No. 2005/0137006 operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving”, “retrieving”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (b) data processing (e.g., “tracking”, “assigning”, “disposing”, “executing”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (c) data storage (e.g., “storing”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (d) data display (e.g., “displaying”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. See Frenkel, abstract, [0006] [0007] [0008] [0009] [0010] [0018] [0029] [0055] [0056] [0062] [0063] [0064]. See Walker, col. 2, lines 42 - 49; col. 7, lines 47 - 63. Shaw, abstract, [0009] [0010] [0011] [0012] [0042] [0052]). See Rothschild, abstract, [0001] [0006] [0020] [0041]. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving”, “retrieving”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (b) data processing (e.g., “tracking”, “assigning”, “disposing”, “executing”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (c) data storage (e.g., “storing”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (d) data display (e.g., “displaying”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Versata Dev. Group, OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate storing and retrieving information in memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). SAP America Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016 USPQ2d 1638 (Fed Cir. 2018) (displaying and disseminating financial information) and Intellectual Ventures 1 LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) (advanced internet interface providing user display access of customized web pages) indicate displaying information is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2 - 9 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims (e.g., product and process claims). Therefore, independent apparatus claim 10 is/are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as the method claims. The components (e.g., “a processor” and “a memory”) described in independent apparatus claim 10, add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. At best, the product (apparatus) recited in the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea.
3.Applicant argues Bascom.
Regarding applicant’s Bascom arguments, an important aspect of the courts finding with respect to the inventive concept in Bascom was that it was a “non-conventional non-generic arrangement of known conventional, pieces” (i.e., In contrast to the “then-known filtering tools”, Bascom’s claimed invention installed filters at the ISP server.). Applicant’s claimed invention is not comparable to Bascom.
First, applicant’s claimed invention is well-understood, routine conventional. As noted above, applicant’s specification as filed 08/08/24 does not provide any indication that the “a gaming interface”/ “in the gaming interface” is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, see at least para. [0051] [0052] [0053] [0055] [0059] [0069] [0114] [0115] [0116]. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Frenkel, US Pub. No. 2007/0015584; Walker, 6,110,041; Shaw, US Pub. No. 2006/0287099; and Rothschild, US Pub. No. 2005/0137006 operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving”, “retrieving”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (b) data processing (e.g., “tracking”, “assigning”, “disposing”, “executing”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (c) data storage (e.g., “storing”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (d) data display (e.g., “displaying”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving”, “retrieving”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (b) data processing (e.g., “tracking”, “assigning”, “disposing”, “executing”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (c) data storage (e.g., “storing”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (d) data display (e.g., “displaying”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Versata Dev. Group, OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate storing and retrieving information in memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). SAP America Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016 USPQ2d 1638 (Fed Cir. 2018) (displaying and disseminating financial information) and Intellectual Ventures 1 LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) (advanced internet interface providing user display access of customized web pages) indicate displaying information is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here).
Second, applicant’s claimed invention does not provide “non-conventional non-generic arrangement of known conventional, pieces.” Applicant’s claimed invention does not provide a “distributed” architecture that renders the claimed invention “unconventional”. Applicant’s claimed invention does not recite any computer network, not even a conventional computer network. Furthermore, with respect method claims 1 - 9, no machine or technology is explicitly recited as performing the positively recited steps or acts at all. There is a nominal or tangential reference to “a gaming interface”/ “in the gaming interface” only. Furthermore, with respect to apparatus claim 10, all processing and decision making in the claimed invention are done exclusively by a single computer (i.e. “apparatus”). In other words, there is no real distribution of tasks in the claimed invention.
Lastly, the features applicant relies upon (e.g., “classifying the first user within one of a plurality of preset tiers according to the retrieved game history data”; and “executing the online game including at least the first user and the second user, including displaying ….. of the executed online game operable by the second user; wherein display of a graphic representing the first user ….. is altered according to which of the plurality of preset tiers the first user is classified within”.) as being analogous to the “filter” in Bascom are “insignificant” because they involve selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (g).
4. Applicant argues McRo.
Applicant appears to suggest the claimed invention is indicative of integration into a practical application because it provides a technical improvement/ McRo. See pg. 8 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 03/09/26. Examiner disagrees.
Applicant’s claim invention is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Applicant’s claimed invention amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract on a computer or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See also, MPEP § 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the nominal or tangential recitation of technology (e.g., (a) “a gaming interface”/ “in the gaming interface”. See at least claims 1 - 10) is merely adding insignificant extra-solution solution activity to the judicial exception. See also, MPEP § 2106.05(g). Applicant’s claimed invention generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technical environment or field of use. See also, MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Second, applicant’s argument that the claimed invention was not considered “as a whole” is not persuasive. All elements of applicant’s claimed invention have been considered “as a whole”. The elements directed to the abstract idea can be found as part of the 2(A), PRONG 1 analysis on pgs. 4 - 6 above. The additional elements can be found as part of the 2(A), PRONG 2 analysis on pg. 6 above. The inventive concept can be found as part of the 2(B) analysis on pgs. 6 - 8.
Prior Art
Withdrawn in light of applicant’s arguments and/ or amendments.
Furthermore, the closest prior art of record also includes Rothschild, US Pub. No. 2005/0137006.
Rothschild is relevant because it discloses a gaming system having a player profile input feature for maintaining player anonymity. Rothschild further discloses allowing players to play certain types of games that are restricted from access to the general public; and/ or display a certain aesthetic format that is pleasing to the player. In Rothschild, the display is adjusted to reflect the player’s preferences after they have been recognized by their player profile information. Although Rothschild similar to the claimed invention in some respects, alone or in combination, it fails to explicitly disclose all the limitations required of the claimed invention such as, “classifying the first user within one of a plurality of preset tiers according to the retrieved game history data”; and “executing the online game including at least the first user and the second user, including displaying a gaming interface of the executed online game operable by the second user; wherein display of a graphic representing the first user in the gaming interface is altered according to which of the plurality of preset tiers the first user is classified within”.
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 SARA C HAMILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-1186. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8-5, 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, Christine Tran can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
SARA CHANDLER HAMILTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/SARA C HAMILTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights