DETAILED ACTION
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 1-16 are directed to an abstract idea of organizing human activity and performing a mental process. The claim(s) does/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
Claims 1-16 recite a series of steps for providing notifications to a user of a wager of interest to them in a wagering game. Thus, these claims are directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Claim 1-7, 12-15 recite:
a computer implemented method comprising executing, on at least one processor:
tracking user activity in real time on a user device by a game app on the user device, the user activity including one or more actions wagered on by a user and one or more actions viewed on the user device by the user;
transmitting the tracked user activity data from the user device to a server of a betting network;
receiving, by the server of the betting network, the tracked user activity data;
storing the received tracked user activity data in a user history database;
periodically identifying by polling a notification module of the betting network, via a live action Application Programming Interface (API), a list of currently available actions which correspond to a live event during the live event,
determining that live actions are in the list of currently available actions, and retrieving, from the live action API, data describing characteristics of each of a plurality of actions which correspond to the live event, said plurality of actions comprising the new live actions;
determining, with an artificial intelligence-based software module during the live event, if any of the plurality of actions are correlated with a historical interest of the user by applying at least one filter to historical data provided in the user history database and
calculating whether a threshold level is met, wherein determining, during the live event, if any of the plurality of actions are correlated with the historical interest of the user comprises, for each N of the plurality of actions
generating, during the live event, a first filter derived from a first characteristic of the Nth of the plurality of actions;
applying the first filter to the user history database of the server containing actions wagered on or viewed by the user to create a filtered set during the live event,
calculating, during the live event, a correlation between odds of the Nth of the plurality of actions and odds of the filtered set, and
comparing, during the live event, the correlation to a predetermined threshold related to the first filter;
determining whether the threshold level is met based on comparison of the correlation to the predetermined threshold, and
determining, during the live event, at least one action in the plurality of actions for which the threshold level is met, and, after the threshold level is met for the at least one action,
triggering a notification step; and
displaying during the live event, on the user device via the game app on the user device, a banner notification describing the at least one action of the plurality of actions for which the threshold level is met.
Claims 8-11,16 recite similar limitations as discussed above.
The underlined claim limitations recite a method of organizing human activity. More specifically, the claim recite steps of providing a notification based for actions on live events (i.e., sports event in light of Applicant’s specification) to wager on. The steps of determining and calculating as claimed are steps of determining activities a user may have interest in, which is a method of organizing a game. Furthermore, providing a notification to wager on a game event is a management of interactions between people.
In addition, the underlined limitation also recite a mental process. The claim elements constitute a concept the can be performed in the human mind (including by, e.g., an observation and evaluation). A person can mentally make the calculations and determinations as claimed.
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 1-16 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.
The additional element of a user device, a software application, a server, a processor and artificial intelligence based software module merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
The additional element of retrieving, on a processor, from a live action Application Programming Interface (API), data describing characteristics of each of a plurality of actions which correspond to a live event; merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The additional element amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
In addition, the steps of transmitting data, receiving data and retrieving data, amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The step of displaying at least one action on banner on the game app of the user device on the driver display console amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
For the reasons discussed above, the additional elements identified above considered alone and in combination fail to integrate the abstract idea into 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.
The examiner finds that the following additional elements simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality. In support thereof, note that MPEP 2106.05(d) II includes:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. . . . iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory . . . .
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).
In addition, storing user activity data in a user history database is step of storing information in a memory, which is well known routine and conventional as indicate by the courts. 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 examiner finds that the use of the live action Application Programming Interface simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality. In support of this finding, the examiner refers Applicant to at least [0027] of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0181691 to Arminguad et al. (“Arminguad”); [0032] of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0245146 to Mimms et al. (“Mimms”); [0041] of 2019/0297162 to Amar et al. (“Amar”).
Regarding the step of displaying the one or more action on the game app of a the user device, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
In addition, displaying at least one actions of the plurality of actions is an option or an offer a user can wager on. The courts have ruled that presenting offers is well understood routine and conventional. OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Furthermore, the use of artificial intelligence-based software module to collect and analyze betting information in known in the art. McDowell (US 2020/0005593) Artificial Intelligence is known in the art to analyze collected wagering information (paragraph 8).
The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea.
The dependent claims merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or use a computer as tool to perform the abstract idea. Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea.
In addition, claim 14 recites tracking the user activity in real time on the user devices requires eye gaze tracking. The additional element of a user device to provide user data using eye gaze tracking amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, Applicant’s specification discloses is known in the art to measure user’s activity using eye gaze tracking.
Applicant’s specification, paragraph 61 recites the following. However, there are many ways known in the art to measure a user's engagement with content on a device such as a smartphone or tablet. One or more of these methods, such as time on screen, eye gaze tracking, etc., could be used to score wagers viewed on a sliding scale between the one and five used in the present embodiment at step 212.
The additional elements considered alone and in combination fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites, “generating, during the live event, a first filter derived from a first characteristic of the Nth of the plurality of actions.” Applicant’s specification fails to disclose that a first filter is generated and that the filter is generated during the live event. More specifically, the closest specification in Applicant’s specification is paragraph 63. Paragraph 63 discloses applying filters and determining if there are more filters available that can be applied. However, there is no description of generating filters and generating a filter during the live event.
Claims 2-7, 12-15 are rejected by dependency. Claims 8-11, 16 recite similar limitations and is rejected for the same reason as discussed above.
Claim 1 recites, determining with an artificial intelligence-based software module, during the live event, if any of the plurality of actions are correlated with a historical interest of the user by applying at least one filter to historical data provided in the user history database. Claim 13 recites, correlating, with an artificial intelligence-based software module, that some of the plurality of actions are correlated with the historical interest of the user. The specification fails to sufficiently explain how this function is performed. That is, there are no sufficient steps and/or flowcharts explaining how the processor determines whether any of the actions are correlated to tracked user activity on the software application by applying at least one filter to a historical interest of the user. Applicant’s specification (paragraph 59) generally discloses, “A betting network which provides an artificial intelligence-based software module that monitors the user's history of viewing and making wagers through the game app in order to identify actions that are highly correlated with actions the user has previously played or shown an interest in viewing or wagering on can be provided in element 122.” Merely disclosing that providing an artificial intelligence-based software module to monitor the user's history of viewing and making wagers through the game app in order to identify actions that are highly correlated with actions the user has previously played or shown an interest in viewing or wagering on does not explain how the artificial intelligence based software module makes the correlation. The examiner submits that this disclosure is not sufficient detail. The examiner directs the Applicant to MPEP 2161.01(1).
Claims 2-7, 12, 14-15 are rejected by dependency.
Claims 8-11, 16 incorporate similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasons as discussed above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, a computer implemented method comprising executing, on at least one processor:
tracking user activity in real time on a user device by a game app on the user device, the user activity including one or more actions wagered on by a user and one or more actions viewed on the user device by the user;
transmitting the tracked user activity data from the user device to a server of a betting network;
receiving, by the server of the betting network, the tracked user activity data;
storing the received tracked user activity data in a user history database;
periodically identifying by polling a notification module of the betting network, via a live action Application Programming Interface (API), a list of currently available actions which correspond to a live event during the live event,
determining that live actions are in the list of currently available actions, and retrieving, from the live action API, data describing characteristics of each of a plurality of actions which correspond to the live event, said plurality of actions comprising the new live actions;
wherein determining, during the live event, if any of the plurality of actions are correlated with a historical interest of the user by applying at least one filter to historical data provided in the user history database and
calculating whether a threshold level is met, wherein determining, during the live event, if any of the plurality of actions are correlated with the historical interest of the user comprises, for each N of the plurality of actions
generating, during the live event, a first filter derived from a first characteristic of the Nth of the plurality of actions;
applying the first filter to the user history database of the server containing actions wagered on or viewed by the user to create a filtered set during the live event,
calculating, during the live event, a correlation between odds of the Nth of the plurality of actions and odds of the filtered set, and
comparing, during the live event, the correlation to a predetermined threshold related to the first filter;
determining whether the threshold level is met based on comparison of the correlation to the predetermined threshold, and
determining, during the live event, at least one action in the plurality of actions for which the threshold level is met, and, after the threshold level is met for the at least one action,
triggering a notification step; and
displaying during the live event, on the user device via the game app on the user device, a banner notification describing the at least one action of the plurality of actions for which the threshold level is met.
The claim recites a computer implemented method executed on at least one processor. At least one processor means a minimum one processor and therefore incorporates the embodiment of one processor. It is assumed that the italicized steps are implemented by the user device and the underlined steps are implemented by the server. The claim is indefinite because the claim recites steps of implementing computer processes implemented on multiple devices and therefore multiple distinct processors. In addition, the claim is indefinite because it is not clear which steps are performed by the claimed processor. Furthermore, assumed more than one processor is used, the claim requires the more than one processor to perform each of the claimed steps. The claim does not differentiate different processors to perform different steps.
Claims 2-7, 12-15 are rejected by dependency. Claims 8-11, 16 recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasons as discussed above.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
35 USC 101
Regarding the 101 rejections, Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims deals with a highly technical solution of handling high speed data filtering and allowing to accurately personalize notification based on user’s history in real time. This is not an interaction between people, but rather a unique statistical predication that results in a concrete action taken automatically by a machine.
However, handing betting data and providing players notifications is an organization of human activity. In addition, making statistical prediction based on a statistical analysis is a mental process.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention could not be performed entirely with in a human mind because the correlation is determined using artificial intelligence based software moule. However, the artificial intelligence based software moule generally links the abstract idea into a computer embodiment. The claim limitations considered alone and in combination fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Artificial intelligence to analyze betting data is well known routine and conventional. The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea.
35 USC 112a
Regarding the limitation of “generating, during the live event, a first filter derived from a first characteristic of the Nth of the plurality of actions”, Applicant contends that a person skilled in the art would be sufficiently enabled by the specification. Support for this limitation may be found in a number of places including Paragraph [0063], which reads in relevant part: “In this embodiment the first filter is the distance from a first down for the offense in an American football game.” This provides a concrete example and demonstrates that filters are created based on the available live actions and rules of a given sports game.
The specification discloses that the first filter is the distance from a first down for the offense in an American football game. In other words, the specification discloses an example of the first filter to be a particular action (distance from a first down). However, there is no description of a generating a first filter and deriving the filter from a first characteristic of the Nth of the plurality of actions.
Regarding claim 13 and now claims 1 and 8 of dependent claims therefore, Applicant contends that the claim limitation of, “correlating, with an artificial intelligence-based software module, that some of the plurality of actions are correlated with the historical interest the user,” that a person skilled in the art would be sufficiently enabled by the specification. The historical interest of the user is described in detail in at least Paragraphs [0064] and [0065], while the calculation of a correlation coefficient could be easily implemented by statisticians using, for example, r-squared, or other simple formulas. Because such a determination is well known by those in the art, a person skilled in the art would be enabled by the current disclosure.
However, applicant generally states that known methods can be used but fails to describe how they would be used. There are no sufficient steps and/or flowcharts explaining how the processor determines whether any of the actions are correlated to tracked user activity on the software application by applying at least one filter to a historical interest of the user. Merely disclosing that providing an artificial intelligence-based software module or what can be used does not explain how the artificial intelligence based software module makes the correlation.
35 USC 112b
Applicant amended the claim to recite at least one processor. The claim limitation of “at least one processor” means a minimum one processor and therefore incorporates the embodiment of one processor. The claim is indefinite because the claim recites steps of implementing computer processes implemented on multiple devices and therefore multiple distinct processors. In addition, the claim is indefinite because it is not clear which steps are performed by the claimed processor. Furthermore, assumed more than one processor is used, the claim requires the more than one processor to perform each of the claimed steps. The claim does not differentiate different processors to perform different steps.
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