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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims disclose an abstract idea that lack practical application, and significantly more.
Under Step 2A, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The claims are directed to the abstract ideas of mathematical concepts and mental process.
Here, the system creates templates for sorting subsets of numbers into color-based templates, wherein to perform statistical analysis through data visualization. However, mathematical calculations to perform statistical analysis is considered an abstract idea under MPEP 2106 (4)(a)(2) which states “i. performing a resampled statistical analysis to generate a resampled distribution, SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163-65, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1598-1600 (Fed. Cir. 2018), modifying SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 126 USPQ2d 1638 (Fed. Cir. 2018).” Secondly, sorting information based on mathematical calculations is also considered an abstract idea under the MPEP 2106 (4)(a)(2) which states “iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014).” Each dependent claim is a further extension of the aforementioned sorting of a sub set of numbers into color based templates. For these reasons the claims present an abstract idea.
The second prong of Step 2A, ask whether the claims recite additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Here, no such practical application exists. There is no improvement made to computer technology since the claims sorting numbers into color based templates. Additionally, there is no practical application as there is no particular machine that is used to implement the claim language, but instead and as will be discussed below only generic computers are used to perform the invention. Also, there is no transformation of the machine used in the application into a different state or thing. Lastly, the claims do not attempt to apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond simply using the claimed machine.
Step 2B asks whether a claimed invention which fails Step 2A contains an inventive concepts, i.e. significantly more. Here the invention does not recite any computing elements and thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea that lacks significantly more and thus is not patent eligible. Therefore, the abstract idea lacks significantly more to make the claims eligible patent subject matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gianella (U.S. Patent No. 7,565,263).
Re claim 1 and 10: Gianella discloses A STATISTICS SYSTEM FOR PREPARING TEMPLATES, in particular for means performed by generating random numbers for prediction, such as a lottery draw, where a specific subset of numbers is selected from a defined set of numbers, characterized in that it comprises a color convention, definitions (I-VIII) and Axioms (I-III) (see Table 1: the system creates templates characterized off of colors wherein each color includes a subset of numbers), which define a template for each type of means performed by generating random numbers, such as lottery games (see Abstract & claim 1: lottery drawings), said templates having subcategories separated by colors, as defined by said color convention (see Table 1).
Re claim 2: Gianella discloses with respect to the SYSTEM, according to claim 1, characterized in that the color convention uses the following models: associating each decile with a color and receiving a name, in which the denomination of each decile is defined by its initial number (see Table 1: each color category is defined by an initial number in a range of numbers).
Re claim 3: Gianella discloses with respect to the SYSTEM, according to claim 1, characterized in that, in definition (I), the tens are classified by their initial numbers and each one receives a color (see Table 1: each range of tens is classified by one an initial number, i.e 1, 10, 20 and a specific color).
Re claim 4: Gianella discloses with respect to the SYSTEM, according to claim 1, characterized in that, in definition (II), each game will be represented by the colors corresponding to the numbers, pairs and trips that compose it (column 6, lines 11-40; claim 17).
Re claim 5: Gianella discloses with respect to the SYSTEM, according to claim 1, characterized in that, in definition (III), Independent Events are the numbers, pairs, trips, fours, fives, sixes of the same ten, in which each ten has a quantity of numbers and the Independent Events have the amounts corresponding to the number of their ten, being that the tens of zero and four—have nine numbers; the tens of one, two and three—have ten numbers (column 6, lines 11-40; claim 17).
Re claim 6: Gianella discloses with respect to the SYSTEM, according to claim 1, characterized in that, in definition (IV), the possibility of simultaneous occurrence of two or more independent events is equal to the product resulting from the possibilities of the events that compose it (see Table 3).
Re claim 7: Gianella discloses with respect to the SYSTEM, according to claim 1, characterized in that, in definition (V), a model is presented that obeys the same ordered sequence of independent events totaling six-p numbers, in which each pattern has an exact number of games (“Six numbers of the same color” wherein said six numbers is within the context of a lottery drawing)
Re claim 8: Grinella discloses with respect to the SYSTEM, according to claim 1, characterized in that, in definition (VI), the sum of the number of games of all patterns totals exactly the games of the experiment (column 7, lines 16-23: “We have seen that the templates have a theoretical prob ability. A further important property of templates is the numeric Sum. If we know it, it can help us discover the range of bets where the chances of winning are greater. The numeric Sum corresponds to the Sum of all the numbers marked in a game. Therefore, a template will show maximum and minimum values of the numeric Sum. The average of these two points is where we find the greater number of o.”).
Re claim 9: Grinella discloses with respect the SYSTEM, according to claim 1, characterized in that, in definition (VII), by dividing the number of games of each pattern by the total number of games in the experiment, the theoretical probabilities of all patterns determined are obtained a priori and exactly, in order to obtain an organization of the sample spaces of all experiments Cn,p constituted in probabilistic mathematical models that allow one to study them mathematically (column 4, lines 1-4; column 5, lines 12-13).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD A RENWICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
REGINALD A. RENWICK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3714
/REGINALD A RENWICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715