Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 11859821, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
The prior application fails to provide adequate support for the claim limitation of, receiving by the processor, a wager between at least two of the second plurality of players, the wager wagering which one of the first plurality of players will have most points once a competition is completed; providing a graphical user interface making available a similar wager to the wager on display devices associated with each one of the second plurality of players from the second table remaining from the second the at least two of the second plurality of players and a plurality of other wager, wherein a more popular one of the plurality of other wagers is displayed in a more prominent location of the graphical user interface than a less popular one of the plurality of other wagers; updating the first table based on one or more outcomes of wagers between at least two of the first plurality of players in response to receiving information indicating a completion of the competition, based on the information indicating the outcome of the competition; and in response to updating the first table, adjusting the second table based on the first table and the wager between the at least two of the second plurality of players as required by claims 22, 23 and the dependent claims of thereof. Accordingly, claims 3-5, 7-10, 12-16 ,18-23 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application.
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 3-5, 7-10, 12-16, 18-23 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 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 and a process, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. Claims 3-5, 7-10, 22 recite,
creating, by a processor, a first table in a memory, the first table having entries for each one of a first plurality of players, where each entry correlates each one of the first plurality of players with their points;
providing a web page, the web page configured to receive information about another player;
sending a message with a request for an approval to adding the another player to the first plurality of players in response to receiving the information about the another player from the web page;
responsive to receiving a message with the approval for the request from the first plurality of players, adding another entry to the first table, the another entry correlated to the another player;
creating, by the processor, a second table in the memory, the second table having entries for each one of a second plurality of players, where each entry correlates each one of the second plurality of players with their points;
receiving by the processor, a wager between at least two of the second plurality of players, the wager which one of the first plurality of players will have most points once a competition is completed;
providing a graphical user interface making available a similar wager to the wager on display devices associated with each one of the second plurality of players from the second table remaining from the at least two of the second plurality of players and a plurality of other wagers, wherein a more popular one of the plurality of other wagers is displayed in a more prominent location of the graphical user interface than a less popular one of the plurality of other wagers;
updating the first table based on one or more outcomes of wagers between at least two of the first plurality of players in response to receiving information indicating a completion of the competition, based on the information indicating the outcome of the competition, wherein updating further comprises:
receiving request for a point adjustment from one of the at least two of the first plurality of players and
receiving a confirmation for the point adjustment from each other ones of the at least two of the first plurality of players besides the one of the at least two of the first plurality of players;
in response to updating the first table, updating the second table based on the first table and the wager between the at least two of the second plurality of players, wherein an identify of each one of the at least two of the second plurality of players is withheld from each other one of the at least two of the second plurality of players;
receiving a request from one of the first plurality of players to make a point adjustment with another one of the first plurality of players; and
making the point adjustment based on whether the request includes a verifying code provided by the another user.
The underlined limitations recite an abstract idea of managing interactions between people, which is a method of organizing human activity. The claims recite a social activity of managing a wager by following rules. The abstract idea of managing interactions between people include social activities and following rules or instructions. In addition, managing wagers including how it is displayed so that a popular wager is in a more prominent location is still a management of a wagering game and therefore an abstract idea.
In addition, the claims recite a mental process. The claim recite creating a first table for a first plurality of players and a second table for a second plurality of players and updating the tables based on one or more wagering outcomes. The steps of creating a table, adding entries to a table and updating a table can be performed mentally by a person with pen and paper.
Claims 12-16, 18-21 23, incorporate similar limitations and recite the same abstract idea as discussed above.
Step 2a2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration of whether the claim recites additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application.
An additional element or combination of additional elements that are indicative of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application include:
-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
Additional element or combination of additional elements that are not indicative of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application include:
-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)
Claims 3-5, 7-10, 12-16, 18-23 do not apply a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing.
Claims 3-5, 7-10, 12-16, 18-23 are not directed to an improvement to a function of a computer. There is no improvement to a technical field. In addition, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way. As indicated in the specification (paragraph 34), the computer is a general-purpose computer. In addition, the steps of determining can be implemented by person or a computing device (Applicant’s specification paragraph 17). A person can perform the claimed steps manually without a computer (create a table and update the table using pen and paper). In addition, the computer graphical user interface to display is generic computer component to conventional display information (webpage or mobile device interface; paragraph 77 of Applicant’s specification). In addition, the claim recites that the user interface is used to display the wager after the wager was received which amount insignificant extra solution activity. The steps of providing a web page to receive information about another player, sending a message with a request for an approval; receiving a message with the approval for the request are steps of gathering data to add a player or adding an entry to a data; receiving a request from one of the first plurality of players to make a point adjustment with another one of the first plurality of players are steps of gathering data. The step of data gathering is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The computer is used to generally link the abstract idea into an electronic embodiment. The computer is only used to manage data (points), in a table, which is a generic use of a computer. The web page to transmit information is a computer embodiment of conveying and transmitting information. For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, the claims recite, the additional elements of a computer processor, a memory and a user interface. Applicant’s specification discloses that the processor may include various type of generic processors and circuits (paragraph 35) and the computer may be a “general purpose computing device such as a cellular phone, a personal digital assistant” (paragraph 34). Therefore, Applicant’s specification indicates that the additional elements of the computer are conventional.
The claims recite additional elements of: providing a web page configured to receive information about another player to the first plurality of players; sending a message with a request for an approval to adding the another player to the first plurality of players in responsive to receiving the information; and receiving a request from one of the first plurality of players to make a point adjustment with another one of the first plurality of players. These additional elements are steps of receiving or transmitting data over a network which is well known, routine and conventional. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), 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 it is here).
The step of updating the points column of the table and another points column in memory are step of performing repetitive calculations (adding and subtracting points or credits) and record keeping (maintaining the points or credits on the table/database). The courts have ruled that the steps off performing repetitive calculations and record keeping by a computer is well known, routine and conventional or insignificant extra solution activity.
Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log).
The step of providing a graphical user interface making a similar wager available on display devices and display popular wager on a more prominent location is a step of using a generic display device (webpage or mobile device interface; paragraph 77 of Applicant’s specification) to display the wager after the wager was received, which amount insignificant extra solution activity. In addition, the steps of providing offer to users (available wager to wager on) is well-known, routine and conventional. As indicated by the courts, presenting offers is well-known, routine and conventional. OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent limitations for claims 3-5, 7-10, 12-16, 18-21 are directed to updating and adjusting the points, indication of data, accepting the wager. These limitations also describe the abstract idea as indicated above. The use of a computer is not integral to the claimed invention for similar reasons as discussed above. The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC 101
Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to include, among other limitations, “the more popular one of the plruiaty of other wagers is displayed in a more prominent location of the graphical user interface than a less popular one of the plurality of other wagers”. A graphical user interface ("GUI") that allows a secondary player to track wagers on the outcome of competitions between primary players while also noting the interest of other secondary players provides an incentive for that secondary player to participate vicariously in the primary players' competitions. This is a specific technological improvement to online wagering that moves the claims beyond the purely abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity into a practical application. Applicant argues that the claims are an improvement to a GUI.
However, managing wagers including how it is displayed so that a popular wager is in a more prominent location is still a management of a wagering game and therefore an abstract idea. Listing the wagers or a similar wager based on popularity is an abstract idea. The use of a user interface ties the abstract idea to a computer embodiment. The claim limitations do not improve the function of a computer. The claimed invention is not directed to an improvement to a GUI. Rather a GUI is used to implement the abstract idea electronically.
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 Jasson H Yoo whose telephone number is (571)272-5563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571 270-7625. 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.
/JASSON H YOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715