DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/5/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 100, 105-110, 112, 114, and 115 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 100 recites the limitation "the real-time skill game propositions" on line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears the limitation should recite ‘the real-time sports-related skill game propositions’ in order to agree with the earlier recitations on lines 2-5. Appropriate correction/clarification is required. Claims 105-110, 112, 114, and 115 are rejected because they depend upon claim 100.
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 14, 19-23, 25, 27-28, 98, 100, 105-110, 112, 114, 115, and 118 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. §101. The Supreme Court has held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, the application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293–94 (2012). In Mayo, the Court stated that “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.’” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citation omitted).
In Alice, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination”’ to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’‒ i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “‘[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,’ was not ‘enough’ [in Mayo] to supply an ‘inventive concept.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
Examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention. The claims are directed to systems, which fall into the four statutory categories. However, claims that fall within one of the four subject matter categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas. See Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 309 (1980).
In Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is ‘directed to’ a judicially recognized exception. According to the specification, the invention “presents propositions to the viewing audience, and based on the collective predictive input received from those propositions, comparable In-Play sports betting propositions are able to be generated, and the odds of the In-Play betting propositions are able to be adjusted based on the actual reaction of the same audience of potential customers to input received from the skill game operator's propositions to optimize the separate single proposition's odds.” Spec. 4.
Representative claim 14 recites the following (with emphasis):
14. A system comprising:
a skill game server device configured to provide real-time skill game propositions simultaneously to a first cohort of participants; and
a real-time server device configured to receive responses related to the real-time skill game propositions from the skill game server device and provide live betting propositions to a second cohort of participants using a sports betting application and risking money on the live betting propositions based on a same event being viewed by the first cohort of participants participating in the real-time skill game propositions, wherein odds for the live betting propositions are adjusted based on betting results received by the real-time server device and utilizing artificial intelligence and machine learning applied to the real-time response to the same skill game proposition, wherein the skill game server device and the real-time server device are separate real-time computer systems, wherein the real-time server device is a separate, dedicated computer system which recalculates and offers improved odds based on responses to the real-time skill game propositions, enabling a sports betting operator to improve profit margins based on reactions of the first cohort of participants to initial odds.
The underlined portions of representative claim 14 generally encompass the abstract idea, with substantially similar features in claim 100 (which specifies that the server is a “sports betting” server device, and encompasses developing additional propositions and odds based on the reactions of the first cohort to the real-time sports-related skill game propositions using artificial intelligence, both of which encompass abstract ideas similar to representative claim 14). The dependent claims further define the abstract idea by introducing various rules to the game (e.g., alternative odds are determined, adjusting previously determined odds based on participants’ responses, players are sent the same live betting propositions, the gaming event is an esports tournament, the games have binary outcome selections, etc.) or relate to implementation of the abstract idea (e.g., receiving the skill game propositions from end user devices, using artificial intelligence to analyze responses). The abstract idea may be viewed, for example, as:
a method of exchanging financial obligations (e.g., real-time skill game propositions, which are effectively methods of exchanging and resolving financial obligations based on probabilities created during the game) as discussed in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. 208 (2014), In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2018),
a fundamental economic practice (e.g., rules for conducting a game) as discussed in In re Smith, and In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V.,
a method of managing a game similar to that of managing a game of bingo in Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F. App'x 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (non-precedential);
a set of game rules similar to increasing or decreasing the risk-to-reward ratio, or more broadly the difficulty, of a multiplayer game based upon previous aggregate results, as discussed in Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of Am., 4 F.4th 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021);
use of machine learning in a given environment (e.g., for calculating wager information) as discussed in Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2025); and/or
a method of organizing human activities (e.g., allowing a human player to play an award-providing game according to rules of the game method) as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank.
The claimed abstract idea reproduced above is effectively a method of exchanging and resolving financial obligations between one or more players and an operator of the gaming system based on probabilities created during the game (see Smith, Marco Guldenaar, and Alice). Based on the reasoning in Smith, and Marco Guldenaar, the recited steps of conducting a game in the instant claims relate to the “fundamental economic practice” of rules for conducting a game. The abstract idea is also similar to that of Planet Bingo, in which a method of managing a bingo game was found to be an abstract idea. Though the instant claims are not limited to bingo games, they encompass the management of similar games. The abstract idea is also comparable to the game rules presented on gaming machines in Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of America, in which a reward probability could be increased or decreased based on aggregating previous game outcomes placed on the gaming machines. The Bot M8 decision also found that such abstract idea is “more broadly the difficulty[] of a multiplayer game.” Like the claims in Recentive, the instant claims merely recite the use of generic machine learning applied to a given data environment. The Recentive court determined that claimed methods are not rendered patent eligible by the fact that using existing machine learning technology they perform a task previously undertaken by humans with greater speed and efficiency than could previously be achieved. We have consistently held, in the context of computer-assisted methods, that such claims are not made patent eligible under § 101 simply because they speed up human activity. The instant claims encompass presenting initial odds, which may be adjusted over time and/or in response to selections made by a plurality of participants. Finally, the claims allow a player to win an award, which is a financial transaction based on the rules of the game. Such transactions are akin to the sort of organizing of human activities, i.e., risk hedging, discussed in Bilski (and shadow accounts in Alice).
Under prong 1, the above analysis demonstrates that the claimed invention encompasses an abstract idea in the form of mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity. Under prong 2, the instant claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely provide instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, add only extra solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. While certain physical elements (e.g., elements that are not an abstract idea such as server devices) are present in the claims, such features do not effect an improvement in any technology or technical field and are recited in generic (i.e., not particular) ways. Similarly, the abstract idea does not improve the functioning of these physical elements. The claims do not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) are not applied with any particular machine (only generic gaming components), (3) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (4) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (e.g., a client-server environment), such that the claim, as a whole, is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h). Therefore, the claims are directed to the judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims encompass the following additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se: a skill game server device, a real-time (sports betting) server device, and user devices to carry out the abstract idea, along with a generic recitation of artificial intelligence to analyze responses and sending of a lockout signal. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The specification admits, “Devices such as a laptop 206, a mobile phone 208, a computer 210, a dedicated betting terminal 220, or any other web connected capable devices are able to be used to participate in the skill game competitions and/or the sports betting by sending information (e.g., responses) to and receiving information (e.g., propositions) from the SGO device 200 and/or the SBO device 202.” Spec. 16.
Additionally, the specification does not indicate what type of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm is employed, nor does it specify what the AI actually does to analyze data. For instance, the disclosure states that AI “is able to take into account bettor[s’] reactions to SBO and/or SGO propositions and corresponding odds to develop additional propositions and odds and/or update current propositions and/or odds.” Spec. 12. However, the specification does not provide any particular algorithm for performing these steps. Instead, the AI is described at a high level of generality and with only functional language. There is no indication that any new or improved AI is provided or contemplated. In light of the court decision in Recentive, this is not sufficient to save a claim from abstraction.
Furthermore, the specification describes the server devices in generic and functional terms, which illustrates that these are merely off-the-shelf computer components arranged in conventional ways. For instance, on page 16, the specification states:
“An SGO [skill game operator] device 200 is utilized to provide SGO propositions and/or receive user input based on the propositions. For example, the SGO device 200 is a game server or a group of servers configured to generate/host/send/control real-time skill game propositions and receive any communications (e.g., selections/responses) from skill game users/participants.
An SBO [sports betting operator] device 202 is utilized to provide SBO propositions and/or receive user input based on the propositions. For example, the SBO device 202 is a server or a group of servers configured to generate/host/send/control real-time sports betting propositions and receive any communications (e.g., selections/responses) from sports betting users/participants.
The SGO device 200 and the SBO device 202 are able to communicate with each other as well, directly (e.g., peer-to-peer) or over a network 204 (e.g., the Internet, a LAN, a cellular network). The SGO device 200 is able to send information (e.g., input results from real-time propositions) to the SBO device 202 which then utilizes the information to generate odds for sports betting propositions. The SBO device 202 is able to then communicate the odds to casinos and/or gaming applications to receive wagers on the propositions.
In some embodiments, the SGO device 200 and the SBO device 202 are one device.”
As such, the claimed skill game server device, real-time server device, and real-time sports betting server device represent generic and conventional computer components described at a high level of generality.
Finally, the sending of a lockout signal to prevent users from submitting a response is both post-solution activity and also well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. For instance, US 2004/0244057 to Wallace et al. teaches sending a signal to synchronize the operation of multiple player devices during a skill game that is played during a broadcast. Furthermore, US 2005/0288101, US 20120058808, and US 2017/0221314 to Lockton (or Locton [sic]) teach the use of a lock out signal to synchronize multiple player devices to obviate the effects of latency in communication networks.
Taking the claimed elements individually yields no difference from taking them in combination because each element simply performs its respective function as discussed above. The claims do not purport to improve the functioning of a computer itself, nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the additional features merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic, functional, and conventional components well-known in the art. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14, 19-23, 27, 28, and 98 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2017/0243438 to Merati (hereinafter Merati).
Regarding claim 14, Merati teaches a system comprising:
a skill game server device configured to provide real-time skill game propositions simultaneously to a first cohort of participants (e.g., a licensed book server 106 associated with a gaming entity to take wagers in a regulated market; see ¶ 38); and
a real-time server device configured to receive responses related to the real-time skill game propositions from the skill game server device and provide live betting propositions to a second cohort of participants using a sports betting application and risking money on the live betting propositions based on a same event being viewed by the first cohort of participants participating in the real-time skill game propositions (e.g., the events may include InPlay and pre-play events associated with sporting events in ¶ 37), wherein odds for the live betting propositions are adjusted based on betting results (e.g., an adjustment of the odds, maximum wager allowed, and/or place a wager on one side if the pari-mutuel pool starts to become imbalanced; see at least ¶¶ 70-74) received by the real-time server device and utilizing artificial intelligence and machine learning (e.g., identify events and calculate odds using artificial intelligence, such as IBM Watson, in ¶¶ 37 and 49) applied to the real-time response to the same skill game proposition, wherein the skill game server device and the real-time server device are separate real-time computer systems, wherein the real-time server device is a separate, dedicated computer system which recalculates and offers improved odds based on responses to the real-time skill game propositions (e.g., the servers of an Odds Management System (“OMS”) in one jurisdiction sends, over a communication network, wagering odds on substantially real-time basis to a Licensed Odds Disseminator server (“LODS”) who in turn distributes the odds to a Licensed Book (“LB”), both of whom are licensed to do business within a particular jurisdiction in ¶ 31; note that the events may include InPlay and pre-play events associated with sporting events in ¶ 37), enabling a sports betting operator to improve profit margins based on reactions of the first cohort of participants to initial odds (e.g., By balancing the risks associated with these wagers, LODS 104 can keep in-house the profit spreads pertinent to these wagers in ¶ 57).
Regarding claim 19, Merati teaches wherein receiving the selections to the real-time skill game propositions includes receiving input from end user devices (e.g., the LBS may comprise a processor 200 such as an Intel i5 processor in ¶¶ 44-45).
Regarding claim 20, Merati teaches wherein the real-time server device is further configured for simultaneous processing of the selections to the real time skill game propositions (e.g., the systems operate “on substantially real-time basis” and provide “time-sensitive InPlay wagers,” which indicates the system may process simultaneous selections; see at least ¶¶ 31 and 46).
Regarding claim 21, Merati teaches wherein processing includes determining alternative odds for the live betting propositions (e.g., a blend of fixed odds and pari-mutuel wagering, which may include adjustments to odds; see at least ¶¶ 74-75).
Regarding claim 22, Merati teaches wherein the real-time server device is further configured for providing the odds for the live betting propositions including adjusting in substantially real-time previously determined odds based on the response to the offered selections by the first cohort of participants to the real-time skill game propositions (e.g., an adjustment of the odds, maximum wager allowed, and/or place a wager on one side if the pari-mutuel pool starts to become imbalanced; see at least ¶¶ 70-74).
Regarding claim 23, Merati teaches wherein the real-time server device is further configured for simultaneously providing the same live betting propositions through receipt of real time data from the skill game server device (e.g., processor 200 calculates new odds based on a changed circumstance, may suspend accepting new wagers from punters and/or may start a new pool using the modified odds, and then provides the changed odds to punters in ¶ 72).
Regarding claim 27, Merati teaches wherein the real-time skill game propositions are related to one or more occurrences (e.g., the punters may place wagers on one or more future events in ¶ 38).
Regarding claim 28, Merati teaches wherein data generated by the real- time server device is sent to the skill game server device to enable more controlled, faster and more predictable odds-setting procedures to provide entertainment in addition to skill game odds (e.g., provide an efficient marketplace for providing wagering odds that are legally complaint in one jurisdiction to entities located in other jurisdictions in ¶ 31).
Regarding claim 98, Merati teaches wherein the offered selections by the first cohort of participants comprise binary selections (e.g., odds may be provided between outcome A vs. B in ¶ 58, which illustrates a binary outcome; see also ¶ 34 discussing binary outcomes as a category of betting).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 100, 105-110, 114, and 115 and 118 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merati in view of US 2005/0288101 to Lockton et al. (hereinafter Lockton).
Regarding claim 100, Merati teaches a system comprising:
a skill game server device configured to provide real-time sports-related skill game propositions simultaneously to a first cohort of participants (e.g., a licensed book server 106 associated with a gaming entity to take wagers in a regulated market; see ¶ 38); and
a real-time sports betting server device configured to receive responses related to the real-time sports-related skill game propositions from the skill game server device and provide live betting propositions to a second cohort of participants using a sports betting application and risking money on the live betting propositions based on a same event being viewed by the first cohort of participants participating in the real-time skill game propositions (e.g., the events may include InPlay and pre-play events associated with sporting events in ¶ 37), wherein odds for the live betting propositions are adjusted based on the betting results (e.g., an adjustment of the odds, maximum wager allowed, and/or place a wager on one side if the pari-mutuel pool starts to become imbalanced; see at least ¶¶ 70-74) received by the real-time sports betting server device and utilizing artificial intelligence and machine learning (e.g., identify events and calculate odds using artificial intelligence, such as IBM Watson, in ¶¶ 37 and 49) applied to the real-time response to the same sports-related skill game proposition, wherein the skill game server device and the real-time sports betting server device are separate real-time sports betting computer systems, wherein the real-time sports betting server device is a separate, dedicated computer system which recalculates and offers improved odds based on responses to the real-time sports-related skill game propositions (e.g., the servers of an Odds Management System (“OMS”) in one jurisdiction sends, over a communication network, wagering odds on substantially real-time basis to a Licensed Odds Disseminator server (“LODS”) who in turn distributes the odds to a Licensed Book (“LB”), both of whom are licensed to do business within a particular jurisdiction in ¶ 31; note that the events may include InPlay and pre-play events associated with sporting events in ¶ 37), enabling a sports betting operator to improve profit margins based on reactions of the first cohort of participants to initial odds (e.g., By balancing the risks associated with these wagers, LODS 104 can keep in-house the profit spreads pertinent to these wagers in ¶ 57), wherein the real-time sports betting server device is further configured for developing additional propositions and odds based on the reactions of the first cohort to the real-time sports-related skill game propositions (e.g., an adjustment of the odds, maximum wager allowed, and/or place a wager on one side if the pari-mutuel pool starts to become imbalanced; see at least ¶¶ 70-74) using the artificial intelligence (e.g., identify events and calculate odds using artificial intelligence, such as IBM Watson, in ¶¶ 37 and 49).
Further regarding claim 100, and regarding claim 118, Merati teaches the invention substantially as described above, but lacks in explicitly teaching the server device triggers a lockout signal to prevent the second cohort of participants from submitting a response to the live betting propositions, further wherein the lockout signal is triggered to account for latency issues to prevent a participant from the second cohort of participants from having an unfair advantage. In a related disclosure, Lockton teaches methods and apparatus for distributed gaming over a mobile device during each of a plurality of discrete game periods (abstract). More particularly, Lockton teaches that at the conclusion of each game period or scoring event, for example a football play or a baseball pitch, the server sends “lock out” signals prohibiting predictions or answers to the questions via a one-way broadcast transmission before the correct answers or facts are revealed (¶ 33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date to modify the system of Merati to include a lockout signal that prohibits predictions after the period has ended in order to obviate the effects of latencies among the participant devices.
Regarding claim 105, Merati teaches wherein receiving the selections to the real-time sports-related skill game propositions includes receiving input from end user devices (e.g., the LBS may comprise a processor 200 such as an Intel i5 processor in ¶¶ 44-45).
Regarding claim 106, Merati teaches wherein the real-time sports betting server device is further configured for simultaneous processing of the selections to the real-time sports betting skill game propositions (e.g., the systems operate “on substantially real-time basis” and provide “time-sensitive InPlay wagers,” which indicates the system may process simultaneous selections; see at least ¶¶ 31 and 46).
Regarding claim 107, Merati teaches wherein processing includes determining alternative odds for the live betting propositions (e.g., a blend of fixed odds and pari-mutuel wagering, which may include adjustments to odds; see at least ¶¶ 74-75) based on data generated by artificial intelligence analysis of previous responses by the second cohort of participants (e.g., the OMS may generate odds “based on user input, i.e., management of OMS 102, and/or autonomously, for example by a processor programmed with Artificial Intelligence” in ¶¶ 37 and 49). Note that because the events may be paramutual, they may include wagers from a second cohort of players (see at least ¶ 31).
Regarding claim 108, Merati teaches wherein the real-time sports betting server device is further configured for providing the odds for the live betting propositions including adjusting in substantially real-time previously determined odds based on the response to the offered selections by the first cohort of participants to the real-time skill game propositions (e.g., an adjustment of the odds, maximum wager allowed, and/or place a wager on one side if the pari-mutuel pool starts to become imbalanced; see at least ¶¶ 70-74).
Regarding claim 109, Merati teaches wherein the offered selections by the first cohort of participants comprise binary selections (e.g., odds may be provided between outcome A vs. B in ¶ 58, which illustrates a binary outcome; see also ¶ 34 discussing binary outcomes as a category of betting).
Regarding claim 110, Merati teaches wherein the real-time sports betting server device is further configured for simultaneously providing the same live betting propositions through receipt of real time data from the skill game server device (e.g., processor 200 calculates new odds based on a changed circumstance, may suspend accepting new wagers from punters and/or may start a new pool using the modified odds, and then provides the changed odds to punters in ¶ 72).
Regarding claim 114, Merati teaches wherein the real-time sports-related skill game propositions are related to one or more occurrences (e.g., the punters may place wagers on one or more future events in ¶ 38).
Regarding claim 115, Merati teaches wherein data generated by the real-time sports betting server device is sent to the skill game server device to enable more controlled, faster and more predictable odds-setting procedures to provide entertainment in addition to skill game odds (e.g., provide an efficient marketplace for providing wagering odds that are legally complaint in one jurisdiction to entities located in other jurisdictions in ¶ 31).
Claims 25 and 112 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merati, either alone or in view of Lockton, and further in view of US 2019/0051116 to Joao (hereinafter Joao).
Regarding claims 25 and 112, Merati alone or in combination with Lockton teaches the invention substantially as described above, including that the system could be applied to many types of wagering events (see ¶ 35). However, Merati lacks in explicitly teaching that the event is a live esports tournament. In a related disclosure, Joao teaches a comparable sports betting apparatus and method in which users may place bets on an outcome of an event (see abstract). Moreover, Joao teaches that the invention may pertain to various types of games including “e-sports” teams, leagues, events, competitions, and activities, and tournaments of any type or kind (¶¶ 132, 152, and 338). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date to modify the system of Merati, alone or in combination with Lockton, to include wagering related to a live esports tournament, as taught or suggested by Joao, in order to improve interest in esports tournament participation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant addresses the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on pages 8-17 of the Remarks section. On pages 8-9, Applicant contends that triggering a lockout signal is not directed to an abstract idea. The Examiner notes that this feature is both post-solution activity as well as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as described in the grounds of rejection above.
A summary of the disclosed invention appears on pages 9-10. On pages 10-11, Applicant points to Uniloc USA v. LG Electronics to show that reducing latency in communications systems is patent eligible. However, this decision is in apposite because the instant claims relate to determining odds for betting propositions and are unrelated to reducing latency. On pages 11-12, Applicant contends that the invention cannot be done manually by humans. This argument fails for three reasons. First, while being capable of manual performance by humans may be an indication of ineligibility, the lack thereof is not a guarantee of eligibility under §101. Second, even complex mathematical calculations performed in real time have been found ineligible. See, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Third, the Federal Circuit has reiterated that “claimed methods are not rendered patent eligible by the fact that (using existing machine learning technology) they perform a task previously undertaken by humans with greater speed and efficiency than could previously be achieved…We have consistently held, in the context of computer-assisted methods, that such claims are not made patent eligible under § 101 simply because they speed up human activity.” Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205, 1214 (Fed. Cir. 2025).
Applicant’s remaining arguments on pages 12-17 have been considered but they are not persuasive. At every point, Applicant places heavy reliance on the notion that the claims require vast amounts of data processed at speeds beyond the capabilities of a human. The claims simply do not require as much. As was true in the first stages of the parent application no. 17/721983, the claims are devoid of any particular number users or bets being placed. The claims require only two cohorts. Depending on whether a cohort requires one or two people, the claims require a total of two to four participants. Serving this number of participants in real time is well within the capabilities of a person to perform mentally. Even assuming arguendo that the claims required vast amounts of financial transactions to be processed at speed, they would still be improvements in the realm of abstract ideas rather than any specific technological solutions to technical problems. “The claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Applicant addresses the rejection of claims as anticipated by or obvious over Merati on pages 17-22. For each claim, Applicant asserts that Merati does not teach wherein odds for the live betting propositions are adjusted based on the information received by the real-time server device related to the real-time response to the same skill game proposition. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and the present amendments do not materially alter this finding.
Representative claim 14 requires in pertinent part “a real-time server device configured to receive responses related to the real-time skill game propositions from the skill game server device and provide live betting propositions to a second cohort of participants using a sports betting application and risking money on the live betting propositions based on a same event being viewed by the first cohort of participants participating in the real-time skill game propositions, wherein odds for the live betting propositions are adjusted based on betting results received by the real-time server device and utilizing artificial intelligence and machine learning applied to the real-time response to the same skill game proposition, wherein the skill game server device and the real-time server device are separate, real-time computer systems, wherein the real-time server device is a separate, dedicated computer system which recalculates and offers improved odds based on responses to the real-time skill game propositions, enabling a sports betting operator to improve profit margins based on reactions of the first cohort of participants to initial odds.”
Merati teaches these features. Specifically, Merati teaches that the servers of an Odds Management System (“OMS”) in one jurisdiction sends, over a communication network, wagering odds on substantially real-time basis to a Licensed Odds Disseminator server (“LODS”) who in turn distributes the odds to a Licensed Book (“LB”), both of whom are licensed to do business within a particular jurisdiction (¶ 31). Merati additionally teaches that the events may include InPlay and pre-play events associated with sporting events (¶ 37). Merati explains that the wagering system offers pari-mutuel wagering in which multiple players enter into a betting pool and winners are paid amounts proportional to their wagers (¶ 66). Merati further explains that the system may automatically perform “an adjustment of the odds…if the pari-mutuel pool starts to become imbalanced” when it is determined “that the wagers placed are not in proportion to expected wagers based on the odds provided to the punters” (¶ 70).
As is demonstrated by the above section of the prior art, the manner in which the betting pool becomes unbalanced is when a first group (i.e., cohort) of bettors has placed too many wagers on one side of a given proposition. Merati remedies this situation by “adjustment of the odds” for future bets to be placed by other bettors (i.e., a future cohort) on the same proposition. As such, Merati teaches wherein odds for the live betting propositions are adjusted based on the information received by the real-time server device related to the real-time response to the same skill game proposition.
In light of the above analysis, the claimed invention fails to demonstrate patent eligibility and patentability over the cited prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H MCCULLOCH whose telephone number is (571)272-2818. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, David Lewis can be reached at 571-272-7673. 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.
/WILLIAM H MCCULLOCH JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights