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 .
Status of Claims
The following is Office Action on the merits in response to the communication received on 3/2/26.
Claim status:
Amended claims: 1, 7-10, 19 and 20
Canceled claims: 4, 5
Added New claims: None
Pending claims: 1-3 and 6-20
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 1-3 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to statutory subject matter. Specifically, the invention of claims 1-3 and 6-20 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 19, and 20 are directed to a system (claim 1), a method (claim 19), and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (claim 20). Therefore on its face, each of claims 1, 19, and 20 is directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1 of the 2019 PEG. However each of claims 1, 19, and 20 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, under Step 2A (Prong One and Prong Two) and Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, which is a judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. 101, as detailed below. Using the language of independent claim 1 to illustrate the claim recites the limitations of, (i) raise a betting level profitability of a bettor, (ii) storing, a bet data from a bet data source, and a bet type and historical performance data associated with said bet data source, said bet data source is a data source offering an at least one bet data; (iii) obtaining at least a forward view environment information and a voice command of the bettor; (iv) receive said bet data from said bet data source; (v) receive said bet type; (vi) execute a first instruction from said plurality of instructions, the first instruction to track said bet data source and obtain said forward view environment information and said voice command; (vii) execute a risk position of said bet data source for a bet, based upon each said bet data source having an overall efficiency score less than or equal to nine; (viii) elect the risk position utilizing said bet data source having said overall efficiency score and said forward view environment information of each said bet data source having said overall consistency score equal to zero, (ix) determine an overall efficiency score for each said bet data source; (x) select each said bet data source having said overall efficiency score; (xi) elect said risk position utilizing said bet data source having said overall efficiency score and said forward view environment information of each said bet data source having said overall return on investment (ROI) percentage score equal to zero; (xii) increment said risk position utilizing said bettor's said forward view environment information by automatically setting a risk position for a subsequent bet when an overall efficiency score of the subsequent bet meets a threshold; (xiii) obtain said voice command of the bettor and execute said risk position of said bet based upon said bet data source efficiency score and at least one separate said bet data source having said overall return on investment (ROI) percentage score; and (xiv) determine a ROI percentage score for each said bet data source comprising at least one of said forward view environment information and the voice command, (xv) increment a risk amount of said bet data source for subsequent risk, based upon said forward view environment information, (xvi) increment risk amount of said bet data source for subsequent risk, based upon said voice command and at least one user input under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers organizing human activity – commercial interactions and/or fundamental economic principles or practices: risk mitigation but for the recitation of generic computers. (Independent claims 19 and 20 recite similar limitations and the analysis is the same).
That is, other than reciting a computer system, a memory device, a plurality of instructions, at least one sensor and a processor nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being directed to organizing human activity – commercial interactions and/or fundamental economic principles or practices: risk mitigation but for the recitation of generic computers. If a claim limitation under its BRI, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computers, then the limitations fall within the “methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One of the Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance 84 Fed.Reg 50 (“2019 PEG”).
This “methods of organizing human activity” is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A prong Two of the 2019 PEG. In particular claim 1 recites the following additional elements of, a computer system, a memory device, a plurality of instructions, at least one sensor and a processor. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements – a computer system, a memory device, a plurality of instructions, at least one sensor and a processor.
The computer system, memory device, plurality of instructions, at least one sensor and processor are recited at a high level or generality (i.e. as a generic computer performing generic computer functions) such that, they amount to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea with a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h). 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.
Under Step 2B of the 2019 PEG independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system, a memory device, a plurality of instructions, at least one sensor and a processor, raise a betting level profitability of a bettor, storing, a bet data from a bet data source, and a bet type and historical performance data associated with said bet data source, said bet data source is a data source offering an at least one bet data; obtaining at least a forward view environment information and a voice command of the bettor; receive said bet data from said bet data source; receive said bet type; execute a first instruction from said plurality of instructions, the first instruction to track said bet data source and obtain said forward view environment information and said voice command; execute a risk position of said bet data source for a bet, based upon each said bet data source having an overall efficiency score less than or equal to nine; elect the risk position utilizing said bet data source having said overall efficiency score and said forward view environment information of each said bet data source having said overall consistency score equal to zero, determine an overall efficiency score for each said bet data source; select each said bet data source having said overall efficiency score; elect said risk position utilizing said bet data source having said overall efficiency score and said forward view environment information of each said bet data source having said overall return on investment (ROI) percentage score equal to zero; increment said risk position utilizing said bettor's said forward view environment information by automatically setting a risk position for a subsequent bet when an overall efficiency score of the subsequent bet meets a threshold; obtain said voice command of the bettor and execute said risk position of said bet based upon said bet data source efficiency score and at least one separate said bet data source having said overall return on investment (ROI) percentage score; and determine a ROI percentage score for each said bet data source comprising at least one of said forward view environment information and the voice command, increment a risk amount of said bet data source for subsequent risk, based upon said forward view environment information, increment risk amount of said bet data source for subsequent risk, based upon said voice command and at least one user input, amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea with a computer. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations individually. The Dependent claim(s) when analyzed individually are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2-3 and 6-18 merely further explain the abstract idea.
When viewed individually the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly claims 1-3 and 6-20 are ineligible.
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 1-3, 6-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “said overall consistency score” at page 3 first line, and “said return on investment (ROI) percentage score” at page 3 lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim. Claims 2-3 and 6-18 depend from claim 1 and are rejected for this reason.
Further Claim 2 recites the limitation “said risk position” at Claim 2, line 3. This claim is indefinite because it is unclear which risk position this limitation is referencing. Does the “said risk position” limitation of Claim 2 refer to “a risk position of said bet data source for a bet” recited in Claim 1 at page 2 lines 16-17? Or does the “said risk position” limitation of Claim 2 refer to “a risk position for a subsequent bet” recited in Claim 1 at page 3 lines 8-9?
Further Claim 3 recites the limitation “the risk position” at page 4. This claim is indefinite because it is unclear which risk position this limitation is referring to. Does “the risk position” limitation recited by Claim 3 refer to “a risk position of said bet data source for a bet” recited by Claim 1 at page 2 lines 16-17? Or does “the risk position” limitation recited by Claim 3 refer to “a risk position for a subsequent bet” recited by Claim 1 at page 3 lines 8-9?
Further Claim 9 recites the limitation “said good said return on investment percentage score” at Claim 9 lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 depends from Claim 9 and is rejected for at least this same reason.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “said ROI percentage score” at page 8 line 11. This claim is indefinite because it is unclear which ROI percentage score this limitation is referencing. Does the “said ROI percentage score” limitation of Claim 19 refer to “a return on investment ROI percentage score equal to zero” recited in Claim 19 at page 8 line 3? Or does the “said ROI percentage score” limitation of Claim 19 refer to “a return on investment ROI percentage score” recited in Claim 19 at page 7 line 21?
Claim 20 recites the limitation “said overall efficiency score” at page 9 lines 9-10. This claim is indefinite because it is unclear which overall efficiency score this limitation is referring to. Does the “said overall efficiency score” limitation recited by Claim 20 refer to “an overall efficiency score for each said bet data source” recited by Claim 20 at page 9 lines 7-8? Or does the “said overall efficiency score” limitation recited by Claim 20 refer to “an overall efficiency score less than or equal to nine” recited by Claim 20 at page 9 lines 2-3? Further Claim 20 recites the limitation “said return on investment (ROI) percentage score” at page 9 lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further Claim 20 recites the limitation “said risk position” at page 9 line 18. This claim is indefinite because it is unclear which risk position this limitation is referring to. Does the “said risk position” limitation recited by Claim 20 refer to “a risk position” executed by a sixth instruction in Claim 20 at page 9 line 11? Or does the “said risk position” limitation recited by Claim 20 refer to “a risk position” executed by a second instruction in Claim 20 at page 9 first line?
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC § 101
The Applicant states “The amended claims recite a specific processor-implemented system architecture that integrates any alleged abstract idea into a concrete practical application and recites significantly more than any judicial exception” (page 12) and “the present claims recite structured efficiency scores that automatically control stored risk allocation parameters. This constitutes a concrete technological implementation” (page 14). The Examiner disagrees with the sentences because the claims are an improvement of the abstract idea only. The invention is a business solution to a business problem of determining and updating risk allocation parameters. The applicant has not shown how the claims improve a computer or other technology, invoke a particular machine, transform matter, or provide more than a general link between the abstraction and the technology, MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) & (e). The Examiner disagrees that “The present claims recite specific implementation details and therefore do not preempt any abstract idea” (page 16). The claims do not provide an improvement over prior systems and only add details to the abstract idea, they do not address a problem particular to the Internet and merely apply the abstract idea on a general computer. The amended claims make the abstract idea more specific. The claims do not use generic and conventional components in a non-conventional manner. Instead, the invention uses conventional components arranged in a conventional manner to perform a conventional process. Determining and updating risk allocation parameters is not an unconventional activity. Applicant’s remarks about why these limitations provide a practical application fail to surface any technical improvement identified in the specification and, therefore this is not an inventive concept and significantly more.
35 USC § 112
The claims are rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) as indicated above in the Office action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MARLA HUDSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. ET.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694