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 .
Applicant’s Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response on 6/30/2025 has been received and considered. In the response, Applicant amended claims 1, 3, 5 – 9, 17 and 18 and added new claim 19. Therefore, claims 1 – 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 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to fantasy sports wagering without significantly more.
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. Claims 1 – 19 are directed to a method 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 is directed to “fantasy sports wagering”. More particularly, representative claim 1 recites the following (with emphasis):
Claim 1: A method of executing a sports fantasy wagering event among multiple participants executed through participant terminals to one or more servers, each of the participant terminals comprising:
one or more processors;
player input controls;
a communications component to connect the participant terminals to a gaming platform running on the one or more servers;
a display to depict action into and from an interactive gaming session directed to a sports fantasy event,
wherein an interactive game is a single participant competing against other single participants that is dependent upon verifiable sports event outcomes in sports event where all wagers must be placed before a first sports event from among at least ten sports events begin;
wherein the single participant selects or enters through the player input controls sports event selections for the verifiable sports event outcomes by defined individual sports players performance or sports team performances selected from the group consisting of sports players at specific positions, team defensive performance and team offensive performance through the player input controls;
each of the multiple participants selecting a predetermined number of outcomes for the defined individual sports players performance or sports team performances;
wherein each of the multiple participants may select any of the defined individual sports player performance s or sports team performances, even if other ones of the multiple participants have selected ones of the defined individual sports players or sports team performances; and
upon occurrence of the verifiable sports outcomes for the defined individual sports players performance or sports team performances, points are awarded by the one or more servers to each of the multiple participants based on performance with respect to the verifiable outcomes for the defined individual sports players performance or sports team performances;
the one or more servers having a memory and the memory having instructions stored thereon that when executed by the one or more servers causes the one or more servers to generate an amended point outcome based on reducing numbers of points awarded to each of the multiple participants inversely based on numbers of the participants having selected any identical individual sports players performance or sports team performances;
wherein the amended point outcome is based on the reducing numbers of points awarded to at least some of the multiple participants inversely based on numbers of the participants having selected any identical individual sports players performance or sports team performances includes a weighting adjustment amount added to each individual sports player’s performance or sports team performances, and
wherein that weighting adjustment amount is an addend, subtractor or multiplier that is not a whole integer;
wherein a monetary wager is placed through the player input controls and monetary payouts are authorized by the one or more servers to individual participants based upon accumulation of points from all amended point outcomes for the individual sports players performance; and
wherein sports events providing the verifiable outcomes for the defined individual sports players performance or sports team performances are limited to sports players performance or sports team performances that occur or have occurred within a time frame of seven days or less and wherein the amended point outcome is provided by establishing a single and equal balancing base number of selections to at least one individual sports players’ position performance or sports team performance, and
further wherein, any of the multiple participants places a wager against the one or more servers or another one of the multiple participants directly on a specific single event outcome in the sports fantasy event.
Claim 7: A method of executing a sports fantasy wagering event among multiple participants executed through participant terminals to one or more servers, each of the participant terminals comprising:
one or more processors;
player input controls;
a communications component to connect the single participant terminal to a gaming platform running on the one or more servers;
a display to depict action into and from an interactive gaming session directed to a sports fantasy event, wherein the interactive gaming session is a single participant competing against other single participants that is dependent upon verifiable sports event outcomes in sports event where all wagers must be placed before a first sports event from among at least ten sports events begin;
wherein the single participant selects or enters through the player input controls sports event selections for the verifiable sports event outcomes by defined individual sports players performance or sports team performances selected from the group consisting of sports players at specific positions, team defensive performance and team offensive performance through the player input controls;
each of the multiple participants selecting a predetermined number of outcomes for the defined individual sports players performance or sports team performances;
wherein each of the multiple participants may select any of the defined individual sports players performance or sports team performances, even if other ones of the multiple participants have selected ones of the defined individual sports players performance or sports team performances; and
upon occurrence of verifiable sports outcomes for the defined individual sports players performance or sports team performances, points are awarded by the one or more servers to each of the multiple participants based on performance with respect to the verifiable sports outcomes for the defined individual sports players performance or sports team performances;
the one or more servers having a memory and the memory having instructions stored thereon that when executed by the one or more servers causes the one or more servers to generate an amended point outcome based on reducing numbers of points awarded to each of the multiple participants inversely based on numbers of the participants having selected any identical individual sports players performance or sports team performances, and a basis of inversion is an addition of non-whole integer amounts of at least some sports players performance or sports team performances of non-whole integer rational values as W which are greater than 0.0 and less than 100,000,
wherein a printer at the participant terminal prints out a sports event ticket identifying the individual sports players performance or sports team performances selected by an individual participant, and a number identifying a total of all individual participants making an identical selection,
wherein one-half or fewer of a total number of the multiple participants in the sports fantasy wagering event elect to engage in a secondary competitive sports fantasy wagering event against at least one other participant in the one-half or fewer of the total number of the multiple participants in the sports fantasy wagering event; and
further wherein, any of the multiple participants places a wager against the one or more servers or another one of the multiple participants directly on a specific single event outcome in the sports fantasy event.
Claim 17: A method of executing a sports fantasy wagering event among multiple participants executed through participant terminals to one or more servers, each of the participant terminals comprising:
one or more processors;
player input controls;
a communications component to connect the participant terminals to a gaming platform running on the one or more servers;
a display to depict action into and from an interactive gaming session directed to a sports fantasy event, wherein the interactive game is a single participant competing against other single participants that is dependent upon verifiable sports event outcomes in sports event where all wagers must be placed before a first sports event from among at least ten sports events begin;
wherein the single participant selects or enters through the player input controls sports event selections for the verifiable sports event outcomes by defined individual sports players performance or sports team performances selected from the group consisting of sports players performance at specific positions, team defensive performance and team offensive performance through the player input controls;
each of the multiple participants selecting a predetermined number of outcomes for the defined individual sports players performance or sports team performances;
wherein each of the multiple participants may select any of the defined individual sports players or sports team performances, even if other ones of the multiple participants have selected ones of the defined individual sports players or sports team performances; and
upon occurrence of verifiable sports event outcomes for the defined individual sports players performance or sports team performances, points are awarded by the one or more servers to each of the multiple participants based on performance with respect to the verifiable sports event outcomes for the defined individual sports players performance or sports team performances;
the one or more servers having a memory and the memory having instructions stored thereon that when executed by the one or more servers causes the one or more servers to generate an amended point outcome based on the reducing numbers of points awarded to each of the multiple participants inversely based on numbers of the participants having selected any identical individual sports players performance or sports team performances, wherein the amended outcome is provided by the one or more servers establishing a balancing base number of selections to each and every individual sports players performance or sports team performance, and that balancing base number is equal at least 10% of the total number of participants in the sports fantasy wagering event; and wherein the amended point outcome A based on reducing numbers of points awarded to each of the multiple sports players inversely based on numbers of the participants having selected any identical individual sports players performance or sports team performances is determined by determining total numbers of the multiple participants N, the total number of each individual sports players performance or sports team performance, and multiply points P awarded on any identical individual sports players performance or sports team performances S, the number of participant made on each of the individual sports players performance or sports team performance O according to A = Px (W+O)/N such that increased selection of an identical individual sports players performance reduces amended points awarded to each of the numbers of participant selections O using the non-whole integer weighting adjustment amount W, and
wherein at least one of the individual participants places at least one individual wager on a sports players performance or sports team performance that is within or outside sports players performance or sports team performance used in the sports fantasy wagering event.
Claim 18: A method of executing a sports fantasy wagering event among multiple participants executed through participant terminals to one or more servers, each of the participant terminals comprising:
one or more processors;
player input controls;
a communications component to connect the participant terminals to a gaming platform running on the one or more servers;
a display to depict action into and from an interactive gaming session directed to a sports fantasy event, wherein the interactive game is a single participant competing against other single participants that is dependent upon verifiable sports event outcomes in sports event where all wagers must be placed before a first sports event from among at least ten sports events begin;
wherein the single participant selects or enters through the player input controls sports event selections for the verifiable sports event outcomes by defined individual sports players performance or sports team performances selected from the group consisting of sports players at specific positions, team defensive performance and team offensive performance through the player input controls;
each of the multiple participants selecting a predetermined number of outcomes for the defined individual sports players performance or sports team performances; and
further wherein, any of the multiple participants places a wager against the one or more servers or another one of the multiple participants directly on a specific single event outcome in the sports fantasy event.
The bolded portions of representative claims 1, 7, 17 and 18 generally encompass the abstract idea. It is clear that the inventive concept here is a new set of rules for fantasy sports wagering. Dependent claims 1 – 6 and 8 – 16 and 19 further define the abstract idea by introducing various rules to the game and/or encompass implementation of the abstract idea.
The abstract idea may be viewed, for example, as:
• a method of exchanging financial obligations (e.g., a wagering game, using payout points, which is effectively a method of exchanging and resolving financial obligations based on probabilities created during the game) as discussed in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, In re Smith (Fed. Cir. 2016), and In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V. (Fed. Cir. 2018),
• a fundamental economic practice (e.g., rules for conducting a wagering game) as discussed in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, In re Smith, and In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B. V., and/or
• a method of organizing human activities (e.g., accepting wagers from a human player and allowing the human player to play the game according to rules of the game method) as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos 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 machine based on probabilities and performance outcomes during the sports game (see Smith, In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B. V., and Alice). Based on the reasoning in Smith, and In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., the recited steps of conducting a wagering game in the instant claims relate to the “fundamental economic practice” of wagering. The claimed steps require players to make a selection of sports event outcomes for a plurality of specific positions, team defensive and team offensive performances for a sports event and place a monetary wager on their selections (wager), which is a financial transaction; in order to play a game, which may result in an award being paid to the player (monetary payout), which is another financial transaction, based on the rules of the game. Such financial transactions are akin to the sort of organizing of human activities, i.e., risk hedging, discussed in Bilski (and shadow accounts in Alice).
The awarding points, amending point outcome, and weighting adjustment are based off received wager, sports event outcome and adjusting based off participant and other participants selection activity, therefore it can be considered as generated points based off activity and sports data/stat points. The awarding, amending and adjustment of the points can be accomplished mentally or with a pen and paper. The Examiner notes that SAP America, Inc v. Investpic, LLC and Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom both showed complex calculations that were ostensibly beyond the skill of a human to do in real time, however both were found ineligible.
Under prong 1, the above analysis demonstrates that the claimed invention encompasses an abstract idea in the form of mathematical concepts, 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 (i.e., elements that are not an abstract idea) 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 (except for 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, 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 does not encompass the following additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se: terminals, servers, processors, input controls, a communication component and a display to carry out the abstract idea. 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.
More specifically, the additional elements are generic, conventional, and well-known in the art of wager gaming and/or devices that represent extra-solution activity. The computer components are purely generic and may be desktop or laptop computers, servers, or other types of computers. Such features are also considered extra-solution activity.
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).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 – 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3 - 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,351,465 in view of Arnone et al. (US Pub. 2016/0110965 A1). Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The Examiner has provided a table below showing the similarities.
Claim 1 of the instant application
Claim 1 of the ‘465 Patent
Similarities and Differences
A method of executing a sports fantasy wagering event among multiple participants executed through participant terminals to one or more servers, each of the participant terminals comprising:
A method of executing a sports fantasy wagering event among multiple participants executed through participant terminals to one or more servers, each of the participant terminals comprising:
Both claims recite the same subject matter.
one or more processors;
one or more processors;
Both claims recite the same subject matter
player input controls;
player input controls;
Both claims recite the same subject matter
a communications component to connect the participant terminals to a gaming platform running on the one or more servers;
a communications component to connect the participant terminal to a gaming platform running on the one or more servers;
Both claims recite the same subject matter
a display to depict action into and from an interactive gaming session directed to a sports fantasy event, wherein an interactive game is a single participant competing against other single participants that is dependent upon verifiable sports event outcomes in sports event where all wagers must be placed before a first sports event from among at least ten sports events begin;
a display to depict action into and from an interactive gaming session directed to a sports fantasy event, wherein the interactive game is a single participant competing against other single participants that is dependent upon verifiable sports event outcomes in sports event where all wagers must be placed before a first sports event from among at least ten sports events begin;
Both claims recite the same subject matter
wherein the single participant selects or enters through the player input controls sports event selections for the verifiable sports event outcomes by defined individual sports players performance or sports team performances selected from the group consisting of sports players at specific positions, team defensive performance and team offensive performance through the player input controls;
wherein the participant selects or enters through the player input controls sports event selections for the verifiable sports event outcomes by defined individual sports players or sports team performances selected from the group consisting of sports players at specific positions, team defensive performance and team offensive performance through the participant input controls;
Both claims recite the same subject matter
each of the multiple participants selecting a predetermined number of outcomes for the defined individual sports players performance or sports team performances;
each of the multiple participants selecting a predetermined number of outcomes for the defined individual sports players performance or sports team performances;
Both claims recite the same subject matter
wherein each of the multiple participants may select any of the defined individual sports players performance or sports team performances, even if other ones of the multiple participants have selected ones of the defined individual sports players performance or sports team performances; and
wherein each of the multiple participants may select any of the defined individual sports players or sports team performances, even if other ones of the multiple participants have selected ones of the defined individual sports players or sports team performances; and
Both claims recite the same subject matter
upon occurrence of the verifiable sports outcomes for the defined individual sports players performance or sports team performances, points are awarded by the one or more servers to each of the multiple participants based on performance with respect to the verifiable outcomes for the defined individual sports players performance or sports team performances;
upon occurrence of verifiable outcomes for the defined individual sports players performance or sports team performances, points are awarded by the one or more servers to each of the multiple participants based on performance with respect to the verifiable outcomes for the defined individual sports players performance or sports team performances;
Both claims recite the same subject matter
the one or more servers having a memory and the memory having instructions stored thereon that when executed by the one or more servers causes the one or more servers to generate an amended point outcome based on reducing numbers of points awarded to each of the multiple participants inversely based on numbers of the participants having selected any identical individual sports players performance or sports team performances;
the one or more servers having a memory and the memory having instructions stored thereon that when executed by the one or more servers causes the one or more servers to generate an amended point outcome based on reducing numbers of points awarded to each of the multiple participants inversely based on numbers of the participants having selected any identical individual sports players performance or sports team performances;
Both claims recite the same subject matter
wherein the amended point outcome is based on the reducing numbers of points awarded to at least some of the multiple participants inversely based on numbers of the participants having selected any identical individual sports players performance or sports team performances includes a weighting adjustment amount added to each individual sports player’s performance or sports team performances, and wherein that weighting adjustment amount is an addend, subtractor or multiplier that is not a whole integer;
wherein the amended point outcome based on reducing numbers of points awarded to at least some of the multiple participants inversely based on numbers of the participants having selected any identical individual sports players performance or sports team performances includes a weighting adjustment amount added to each individual sports player’s performance or sports team performances, and wherein that weighting amount is a addend, subtractor or multiplier that is not a whole integer;
Both claims recite the same subject matter
wherein a monetary wager is placed through the player input controls and monetary payouts are authorized by the one or more servers to individual participants based upon accumulation of points from all amended point outcomes for the individual sports players performance; and
wherein a monetary wager is placed through the participant input controls and monetary payouts are authorized by the one or more servers to individual participants based upon accumulation of points from the amended point outcomes for the individual sports players; and
Both claims recite the same subject matter
wherein sports events providing the verifiable outcomes for the defined individual sports players performance or sports team performances are limited to sports players performance or sports team performances that occur or have occurred within a time frame of seven days or less and wherein the amended point outcome is provided by establishing a single and equal balancing base number of selections to at least one individual sports players’ position performance or sports team performance, and
wherein sports events providing the verifiable outcomes for the defined individual sports players performance or sports team performances are limited to sports players performance or sports team performances that occur or have occurred within a time frame of seven days or less and wherein the amended outcome is provided by establishing a single and equal balancing base number of selections to at least one individual sports players’ position performance or sports team performance, and
Both claims recite the same subject matter
further wherein, any of the multiple participants places a wager against the one or more servers or another one of the multiple participants directly on a specific single event outcome in the sports fantasy event.
‘465 Patent does not recite this limitation
However, U.S. Patent No. 11,351,465 does not expressly disclose further wherein, any of the multiple participants places a wager against the one or more servers or another one of the multiple participants directly on a specific single event outcome in the sports fantasy event (as mentioned above).
Arnone et al. teaches a sports event driven skill wagering game, wherein the sports event driven skill wagering game can include a sports event driven entertainment game that includes head to head play between a single player and the computer; between two or more players against one another; or multiple players playing against the computer and/or each other as well as a process by which a player can bet on the outcome of a sports event driven entertainment game (e.g., single event outcome can be player shot, player assist, goal scored, etc, see [0053] and [0114]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have implemented a single event outcome wagering of Arnone et al. to the fantasy sports wagering game of US. Patent No. 11,351,465 in order to allow the participants to wager on in-game event outcomes.
Additionally, Claims 7, 17 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above and the dependent claims and US Patent 11,351,465 are identical, therefore they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s argument that the 101 rejection fails to meet the legal requirements of the four underlying Supreme Court cases on the exception to patentability of the “abstract idea” under 35 USC 101. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
After further review, the limitations to the independent claims are directed to an abstract idea of executing a sports fantasy wagering event.
Humans are constantly performing actions in real-time and calculating data. Simply receiving data about a player’s performance and then adjusting and determining a weighted adjustment amount based off player’s performance can easily be done by a human in real-time just by their knowledge of the players and the game. Theoretically, a person can quickly determine a player’s game performance and verify the outcome based off varies parameters. The claims are focused on gathering, processing and displaying information. The Examiner notes that SAP America, Inc v. Investpic, LLC and Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom both showed complex calculations that were ostensibly beyond the skill of a human to do in real time, however both were found ineligible.
The Examiner respectfully directs Applicant to claim 3 of Example 37 of the USPTO Section 101 guidelines because the instant computing system, processor and memory are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic computing system performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic computing system limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same is true for the claimed processor and memory. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are therefore directed to the abstract idea.
Additionally, the October 2019 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility states “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” and “[c]laims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind” (p. 8). Furthermore, the October 2019 Update states, “examiners may review the specification to determine if the underlying claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, 2) in a computer environment or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept” (p. 8).
According to the October 2019 Update on Eligibility Guidance, the sub-groupings of
certain methods of organizing human activity “encompass both activity of a single person…and
activity that involves multiple people” (p. 5). The October 2019 Update concludes, “thus, certain
activity between a person and a computer… may fall within the ‘certain methods of organizing
human activity’ grouping” (p. 5). Because computer elements do not diminish the recitation of
certain methods of organizing human activity in a claim, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Further, the October 2019 Update states on pages 4-5 that certain methods of organizing human activity encompass both activity of a single person as well as activity that involves multiple people. The guidance also notes that certain activities between a person and a computer may still fall into the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. Therefore, the instant claims, which include a participants and verifying sporting event outcome, are properly construed as certain methods of organizing human activity.
The limitations are not indicative of an inventive concept (“significantly more”), as there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology to technical field.
Therefore, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of executing a sports fantasy wagering event executed on generic and conventional computing devices. There is not any indication that the invention provides a technological solution to a technical problem. Rather, the claimed invention merely recites a technological environment in which the abstract idea is to be practiced. Therefore, the 35 USC 101 rejection has been maintained.
Further, the applicant stated in p.29 that “a terminal disclaimer has been timely filed with this amendment”, however no terminal disclaimer was received, therefore the double patenting rejection is maintained.
Additionally, the amendments have overcome the claim objection and the 35 USC 112 rejection.
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 ANKIT B DOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7863. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri. ~8:00 - ~ 5:00.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
/A.D/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715