DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response on 7/26/2026 has been received and fully considered. In the response, claims 1, 8-11, and 13 have been amended; and claims 2, 12, and 14-15, and 17-18 have been canceled. Therefore, claims 1, 3-11, 13, 16, and 19 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.
Claims 1, 3-11, 13, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
2019 PEG Analysis
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a statutory category (e.g., a process, machine, etc.)
Claims 1, 3-7 and 9-11, 13, 16, and 19 are directed to an apparatus (e.g., claim 1 is directed to a system and claim 9 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium). Claim 8 is directed to a process.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea. The following specific limitations in the claims under examination recite an abstract idea:
Simulate a match (e.g., claims 1, 4, 8, 9, and 11)
Create statistical information of the match (e.g., claims 1-4, 7-11, and 19)
Replacing cards in the game deck based on match statistics and a genetic algorithm (e.g., claims 1, 4-6, 8-11, 13, and 16)
The above listed identified limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG:
Mental Processes: concepts preformed in the human mind (including on observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions or relationships of interaction between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.
The claims are primarily directed to rules for playing a game, wherein the game rules align with a method of organizing human activity.
Step 2A (Prong 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Overall, the following additional claim limitations appear to merely implement the abstract idea, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, or generally link the judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use, as outlined below:
Receiving game data (e.g., claims 1, 8, and 9, insignificant extra-solution activity);
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
With regard to claims 1, 3-7 and 9-11, 13, 16, and 19 the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The above listed additional claim limitations display and process game data in a well-understood, routine, and conventional way. Further, the computer hardware of claim 1 (e.g., a system with “units”) are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. The recited “units” (e.g., match simulation unit, statistical information unit, input reception unit, and deck construction unit) appear to be combination of software and well-understood, routine and conventional hardware.
In order to satisfy the Berkheimer factual determination of conventional elements in the art, U.S. Patent No. 7,819,742 to Chamberlain is cited for disclosing the conventional features of gaming machines including processors (e.g., see at least column 11, lines 14-16) and displays (e.g., see column 7, lines 12-25). Therefore, claims 1, 3-7 and 9-11, 13, 16, and 19 are not patent eligible under 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 9, fourth paragraph, Applicant argues that claim 1 is note directed merely to a mental process or a certain method of organizing human activity. As set forth above, claim 1 recites an abstract idea that is a mental process and a certain method of organizing human activity, including: simulating a match, creating statistical information of the match, and replacing cards in the game deck based on match statistics and a genetic algorithm. Each of the abstract ideas can be performed mentally by a player/user and are rules for playing a game.
In the paragraph bridging pages 9 and 10, Applicant asserts that provide a practical technological application rather than being directed merely to an abstract idea. Each of Applicant’s recited features in this argument appear to either be insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, or generally link the judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use.
In the paragraph bridging pages 11 and 12, Applicant again argues that recited features integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. All of the asserted features appear be associated with the abstract idea of replacing cards to construct a card deck without improving the functioning of a computer, using a particular computer, or effecting a transformation. It appears that any additionally recited features appear to either be insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, or generally link the judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use.
Applicant’s prior art arguments starting on page 12 in combination with the current amendments are persuasive in overcoming the prior art rejections.
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 JAMES S MCCLELLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:30AM-5:00PM).
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.
/James S. McClellan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
