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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant argues that the amended claims are directed to an improved user interface in view of Core Wireless Licensing SARL v. LG Electronics, 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018), integrate any judicial exception into a practical application under Prong Two of Step 2A (citing USPTO Example 37), and recite significantly more under Step 2B because the recited GUI steps are unconventional (citing Berkheimer).
These arguments are not persuasive. As set forth in detail in the § 101 rejection below, the claims remain directed to the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity (rules for playing/managing a multi-class deck-construction battle game that enforce minimum counts per class/attribute) and mental processes (selecting classes, determining whether a deck satisfies a predetermined minimum-count condition, and displaying related information). The additional elements (class select screen with buttons, dual-region deck building screen, save confirmation image, save alert image with cancel/second-save buttons, and the conditional rebuild loop) amount to no more than conventional computer GUI elements used as a tool to implement the abstract game rules. They do not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology; they merely provide a field-of-use interface for enforcing game rules. Core Wireless is distinguishable because that case involved a specific improvement in the way a computer displays and provides faster access to application data while applications remain un-launched. Here, the claimed screens simply present and collect user selections to enforce abstract game-construction rules and then display battle information. Example 37 is likewise distinguishable: the icon-rearrangement claim produced a specific improvement in the operation of the GUI itself (automatically relocating icons based on usage). The present claims do not rearrange, reconfigure, or improve the GUI technology; they use ordinary screens, buttons, lists, and dialogs to apply game rules. The ordered combination remains abstract, and no inventive concept is present. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F. App’x 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
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 1-4, 6-9 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. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes and/ or certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
More specifically, regarding Step 1, of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a machine, process, and/or an article of manufacturer, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a – Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
The claims recite an abstract idea that falls within the groupings of certain methods of organizing human activity (rules for playing or managing a game) and mental processes (concepts that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper).
Specifically, the independent claims recite the following abstract limitations (claim 1 used as representative):
selecting a first class among a plurality of classes for a deck;
building a first deck by selecting digital cards associated with the first class;
determining whether the first deck satisfies a predetermined condition (minimum number of digital cards for a main class that is larger than for a sub-class) based on the selected class;
if the condition is not satisfied, allowing the user to cancel and rebuild until a second deck that does satisfy the predetermined condition is produced;
then executing a battle game using a subset of cards from the compliant second deck against an opponent’s third deck; and
displaying class/attribute information (including magnitude indicators) on battle and pause screens.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover managing personal behavior or interactions (game rules that force multi-class decks to contain at least a minimum number of cards of each selected class) and mental processes (a person can select classes, count cards per class, compare the counts against predetermined minima, decide whether the deck is valid, and display or note the results). The claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea. See In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (rules for a dice game); Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F. App’x 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computerized bingo game rules). The “battle game,” “digital cards,” and “classes” merely provide a field of use.
Step 2a – Prong 2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition - see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing – see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-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 - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea- see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h)
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claims recite the additional elements of:
a display device within a terminal device;
an input device within the terminal device;
a class select screen comprising a plurality of class select buttons and a select button;
a deck building screen comprising a first save button, a first display region (list of cards of the selected class), and a second display region (current deck list);
a first display screen comprising a save confirmation image with an enter button;
a second display screen comprising a save alert image with a cancel button and a second save button;
a battle screen; and
a computer processor / memory storing a program (claims 8 and 9).
These additional elements, whether considered individually or in combination, amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer using conventional GUI components (screens, buttons, lists, confirmation dialogs, and alert dialogs). See MPEP 2106.05(f). They do not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology (MPEP 2106.05(a)); they do not apply the exception with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)); they do not effect a transformation (MPEP 2106.05(c)); and they do not apply the exception in any other meaningful way beyond generally linking it to the technological environment of a digital card game (MPEP 2106.05(e), (h)).
The claimed multi-screen flow merely provides a conventional way for a user to select classes, build a deck, receive feedback that the deck violates a game rule, cancel, rebuild, and then play. This is the equivalent of “apply it” on a computer. The specification describes the screens as ordinary display images generated by a processing unit on a generic terminal (see, e.g., published application [0055]–[0063], [0098]–[0100], Figs. 5, 6, 12). No technical improvement to rendering, data structures, computer efficiency, or GUI technology itself is claimed or disclosed.
Thus, the claims are directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements identified above are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions and GUI techniques: displaying selectable buttons and lists on successive screens, receiving user inputs, showing confirmation and alert dialogs, and returning to a previous screen upon cancel. These are generic computer activities performed on a general-purpose device (desktop, laptop, smartphone, or server). See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26; MPEP 2106.05(d). The ordered combination does not add anything inventive; it simply automates the abstract game-rule enforcement using ordinary computer tools. No non-conventional arrangement of computer components is recited.
Dependent claims 2–4, 6, and 7 merely add further abstract details (main/sub-class minimums; displaying class information or magnitude indicators on battle or pause screens) and do not supply an inventive concept.
Accordingly, claims 1-4 and 6-9 are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Filing of New or Amended Claims
The examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the original disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. See Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263, 191 USPQ at 97 (“[T]he PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). However, when filing an amendment an applicant should show support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims. See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 (“Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”). Please see MPEP 2163 (II) 3. (b)
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SENG H LIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3301. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/Seng H Lim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights