DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s arguments in the Response dated December 17, 2025 as part of the Request for Continued Examination directed to the rejection set forth in the Final Office Action dated September 18, 2025. Claims 2-4 and 6-16 are pending in the application and subject to examination as part of this office 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 2-4 and 6-16 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 claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Each of claims 2-4 and 6-16 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
The determination of subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, relies on the Mayo/Alice two-step analysis.
In step 1 of the analysis, the claims are evaluated to determine whether they fall within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In the present case, claims 2-13 and 15 are directed to a computer system (i.e., a machine) and claims 14 and 16 are directed to an method (i.e., a process). The claims are, therefore directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner is directed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. The claims are compared to groupings of subject matter that have been found by courts as abstract ideas. These groupings include
(a) Mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity—fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
(c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Independent Claim 2 recites a computer system comprising (abstract idea is underlined):
a server including at least one processor configured to control:
receiving, over a communication network, from a first computer terminal of a plurality of computer terminals, an amount of risk on each side of a two sided wager proposition for an in-game event of a game through the first computer terminal, in which the amount of risk is based on outstanding wagers on the in-game event and user performance ratings for respective users on a given side of the wager proposition, in which the user performance ratings are based on historic user performance ratings based on wager outcomes (certain methods of organizing human activity);
receiving, over the communication network, from a second computer terminal of the plurality of computer terminals, a second amount of risk on each side of the two sided wager proposition for the in-game event through the second computer terminal (certain methods of organizing human activity);
receiving, over the communication network, real-time automated information of the game as a data feed (certain methods of organizing human activity) and determining in real time event outcomes of the game based on the in-game event (certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes); and
automatically, while a betting event for the in-game event is determined to be open based on the real-time automated information:
determining a level of risk exposure for a first side of the two sided wager proposition based on risk on the first side, in which the level of risk exposure is determined based on risk through both the first and second computer terminals as respective first and second wagering venues (certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes);
determining a level of offsetting risk exposure for the first side of the two sided wager proposition based on risk on a second side of the two sided wager proposition, in which the level of offsetting risk exposure is determined based on risk through both the first and second wagering venues (certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes);
determining a total level of risk exposure based on the risk exposure and the offsetting risk exposure (certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes);
determining that the total level of risk exposure is greater than a threshold value (certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes);
determining a liquidity level for a transaction that would offload at least a part of the total level of risk exposure (certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes);
determining, based on the real-time automated information, a time remaining for entering into the transaction (certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes);
in response to determining that the total level of risk exposure is greater than the threshold value, the liquidity level for the transaction and the time remaining for entering into the transaction, facilitating, over the communication network, the transaction (certain methods of organizing human activity), in which facilitating the transaction includes:
making a comparison of a player betting behavior to a desired odds calculation by a risk manager (certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes),
based on the comparison, determining by the risk manager, whether the transaction is more likely to result in a loss or a win (certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes),
responsive to determining whether the transaction is more likely to result in a loss than a win for a first entity of a gaming operator, identifying a jurisdiction having a large number of prior wins (certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes),
determining whether a condition is met:
when the condition is met, transferring the transaction by the first entity to a second entity in the identified jurisdiction, and transferring consideration from the second entity to the first entity, wherein transferring the transaction comprises outputting a solicitation for transferring the transaction in exchange for consideration on a website monitored by another plurality of computer terminals corresponding to a plurality of other entities including the second entity (certain methods of organizing human activity), and
when the condition is not met, making a counter wager by the first entity with the second entity in the identified jurisdiction, the counter wager based on the transaction, wherein making the counter wager comprises outputting a solicitation for making the counter wager on a website monitored by another plurality of computer terminals corresponding to a plurality of other entities including the second entity (certain methods of organizing human activity).
The present claims relate to gaming (Specification [0003]). Some embodiments may include various events or propositions that may be wagered upon (Specification [0009]). Wagering is a commercial interaction that falls under fundamental economic practices or principles because it involves a new set of rules for conducting a wagering game. Additionally, the claims relate to a hedging transaction to offload at least a part of a total level of risk for a two sided wager proposition. This falls into the subcategory of commercial or legal interactions. The claims also fall into the subcategory of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people since the claims describe a method of playing a game including placing wagers. These sub-categories fall under certain methods of organizing human activity.
Further, the claims recite several determining steps that could be performed in the human mind. These fall into the category of mental processes
Independent claim 14 recites similar language and is similarly evaluated in prong 1 of step 2A. Dependent claims 3-4, 6-13 and 15-16 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 generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
For at least the above reasons, each of claims 2-4 and 6-16 recites at least one step or instruction involving certain methods of organizing human activity (falling within the subcategories of fundamental economic practices). Accordingly, for at least the above reasons, each of claims 2-4 and 6-16 recites an abstract idea.
Under prong 2 of Step 2A, the examiner considers whether additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. To do so, the examiner looks to the following exemplary considerations, looking at the elements individually and in combination:
• an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
• an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (not considered relevant to the present claims);
• an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
• an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
• an additional element applies or uses 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.
The additional elements in the present claims are a server including at least one processor, a communication network, from a first computer terminal, a second computer terminal, and a display.
The additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The computer doesn’t behave differently other than carrying out the abstract idea. In addition, the examiner is unable to identify an improvement to a technology or technical field. Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
The additional elements do not implement a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. The additional elements recite general purpose computing elements.
The additional elements do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
The additional elements do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The claims merely apply the abstract idea to general purpose computer elements.
Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified in claims 2-4 and 6-16 is not integrated into a practical application.
Under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The examiner considers if the additional elements:
• add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract ideas to be performed using the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and storing data, (ii) automating mental tasks and (iii) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
The additional elements in the present claims are well-understood, routine, or conventional:
a server including at least one processor (Goranson, US 2010/0268769 A1, as it is well-known in the art, both servers and clients comprise at least one processor and memory [0087]),
a communication network, a first computer terminal, a second computer terminal (Mick et al., US 2015/0018064 A1, multiple players play with each other over a network connection each at their several terminals or computers or hand-held devices, with the processor executing the instructions from a central server or the like, all in accord with well-known network and client/server technology [0090]); (Walker et al., US 2014/0213341 A1, the player terminal 304 may be any client device now or hereafter used to communicate over a network with a computer host; in many cases the player terminal 304 may be embodied as a conventional personal computer; many other possible embodiments of the player terminal 304 will be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art; the Internet 306 shown in FIG. 3 is the well known network of computers which now virtually ubiquitously enables data communications all over the world [0050]), and
a display (Tedesco et al., US 2008/0248865 A1, for gaming devices, common output devices include a cathode ray tube (CRT) monitor on a video poker machine, a bell on a gaming device (e.g., rings when a player wins), an LED display of a player's credit balance on a gaming device, an LCD display of a personal digital assistant (PDA) for displaying keno numbers [0120]).
None of claims 2-4 and 6-16 include additional elements or provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the additional elements in claims 2-4 and 6-16 do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the above-identified abstract ideas with well-understood, routine and conventional activity (based on Applicant’s specification) specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The above-identified additional elements, when viewed alone or as whole, 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.
For at least the above reasons, none of the claims 2-4 and 6-16 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, claims 2-4 and 6-16 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 2-4 and 6-16 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. The examiner was unable to find any support for the newly amended claim language. While applicant states “[t]he Specification (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0339537) supports the amendments, at least at, for example, paragraph [0062]”, there is no language supporting:
wherein transferring the transaction comprises outputting a solicitation for transferring the transaction in exchange for consideration on a website monitored by another plurality of computer terminals corresponding to a plurality of other entities including the second entity
and
wherein making the counter wager comprises outputting a solicitation for making the counter wager on a website monitored by another plurality of computer terminals corresponding to a plurality of other entities including the second entity.
Prior art rejections
There are currently no prior art rejections against claims 2-4 and 6-16.
The closest prior art includes Amaitis et al., US 2011/0177862 A1 (hereinafter Amaitis). Amaitis discloses interactions among sportsbooks (Amaitis [Abstract]). Amaitis does not fairly teach or suggest the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to prong 1 of step 2A, applicant argues:
Applicant respectfully submits that claims 2 and 14, as now amended, do not recite "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" and do not recite "mental processes."
Claims 2 and 14 as now amended recite a specific method of finding a counterparty in a technically constrained environment. Regardless of whether the method may be used to form, or involved with, e.g., "wagering" or "a hedging transaction" or use certain language, e.g., "transaction" or "counter wager", that refers to commercial or legal interactions, claims 2 and 14 as a whole, recite a way of finding a terminal associated with another counterparty in a vast network of terminals. That is, in order to transfer a transaction or make a counter wager, a computer terminal associated with the counterparty has to be found in a vast network of computer terminals. Claims 2 and 14 find the computer terminal associated with the counterparty by "outputting a solicitation" for transferring the transaction/counter wager "on a website monitored by another plurality of computer terminals corresponding to a plurality of other entities including the second entity." Thus, with foregoing amended limitations, claims 2 and 14 as a whole cannot be deemed to recite "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" and cannot be deemed to recite "mental processes." (Response [p. 11])
The examiner disagrees.
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon. The term “abstract idea” is not interpreted as a layperson might. Instead, the term “abstract idea” is interpreted as described in legal opinions by courts.
According to MPEP 2106.04(a):
To facilitate examination, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
The examiner maintains that the present claims recite limitations that fall into the categories of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. The claims relate to wagering games and offsetting risk exposure. This very clearly falls into the subcategory of fundamental economic practices or principles because it involves a set of rules for conducting a wagering game. The claims also fall into the subcategory of commercial or legal interactions because offsetting risk exposure is a hedging transaction. The claims also fall into the subcategory of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people since the claims describe a method of playing a game including placing wagers.
The following limitations "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper":
determining in real time event outcomes of the game based on the in-game event; and
determining a level of risk exposure for a first side of the two sided wager proposition based on risk on the first side, in which the level of risk exposure is determined based on risk through both the first and second computer terminals as respective first and second wagering venues;
determining a level of offsetting risk exposure for the first side of the two sided wager proposition based on risk on a second side of the two sided wager proposition, in which the level of offsetting risk exposure is determined based on risk through both the first and second wagering venues;
determining a total level of risk exposure based on the risk exposure and the offsetting risk exposure;
determining that the total level of risk exposure is greater than a threshold value;
determining a liquidity level for a transaction that would offload at least a part of the total level of risk exposure;
determining, based on the real-time automated information, a time remaining for entering into the transaction;
making a comparison of a player betting behavior to a desired odds calculation by a risk manager,
based on the comparison, determining by the risk manager, whether the transaction is more likely to result in a loss or a win,
responsive to determining whether the transaction is more likely to result in a loss than a win for a first entity of a gaming operator, identifying a jurisdiction having a large number of prior wins,
determining whether a condition is met:
In the present instance, the claims clearly fall into the abstract idea categories of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. The limitations identified in the subject matter eligibility analysis above are the core of the present invention and not involved in a greater concept.
With respect to prong 2 of step 2A, applicant argues:
Practical applications can include an "additional element [that] reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field." Office Action, p. 6. "This consideration has also been referred to as the search for a technological solution to a technological problem." MPEP 2106.05(a).
Applicant respectfully submits claims 2 and 14 recite an unconventional technical solution "outputting a solicitation" for transferring the transaction/counter wager "on a website monitored by another plurality of computer terminals corresponding to a plurality of other entities including the second entity," to a technical problem, finding a computer terminal corresponding to "the second entity" of "a plurality of other entities." This is not generic internet use. Rather it defines a very specific client-polling data distribution model that solves a concrete problem. (Response [p. 12])
According to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1):
The courts have not provided an explicit test for this consideration, but have instead illustrated how it is evaluated in numerous decisions. These decisions, and a detailed explanation of how examiners should evaluate this consideration are provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a). In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").
The examiner was unable to find any suggestion in the specification that the present claims are directed to improvements to the functioning of a computer or improvements to another technology or technical field. One of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize that the present claims are directed to a technical solution to a technical problem. Finding a computer terminal corresponding to the second entity of a plurality of other entities is not a technical problem as suggested by applicant.
Applicant’s arguments are based almost entirely on the abstract idea rather than the additional elements. In the present instance, the combination of the additional elements is no more than using generic computing components to apply the judicial exception and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The examiner maintains that the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WERNER G GARNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7147. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-15:30 EST.
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.
/WERNER G GARNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715