DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Applicant’s Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 02/04/2026. Presently, claims 1, 20, 21, 23-25, 27-29, and 31-33 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, 20, 21, 23-25, 27-29, and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an apparatus comprising: a non-transitory medium having stored thereon a plurality of instructions that when executed by a processor cause the processor to (this not part of the abstract idea but are basic generic computing parts): display a live feed of an event wherein the live feed includes displaying live plurality of objects that are part of the event, wherein the event is a contest, and the plurality of objects are players or items that are used in the contest and are native content of the live feed (the fact that it is display is merely extra-solution activity/basic computer functioning of displaying video feed and does not rise to the level of either making the later claimed abstract idea a practical application nor significantly more); overlay a touch-sensitive interface on the live feed of the event (as shown in US Patent Application Publication 2010/0020022 touchscreens are well known in the art 0027 and as such does not add significantly more to the abstract idea nor provide a practical application); detect a touch of at least two objects of the plurality of objects that are native content of the live feed (merely using a touchscreen as noted above as noting what is touched does not add significantly more, see id) generate a proposition, wherein the proposition is prediction of a contest event involving the at least two objects, the contest event being determined based on respective roles of the at least two objects in a context of the contest (certain methods of organizing human activity/mental process), wherein generating the proposition comprises: detecting a selection of a player in the contest (certain methods of organizing human activity/mental process); detecting a selection of a location in a field of player of the contest (certain methods of organizing human activity/mental process); and determining the contest event based on a logical relationship between the player, the contest, and the location in the field of play (certain methods of organizing human activity/mental process); and communicate the proposition (certain methods of organizing human activity/mental process). The underlined portions in exemplary claim 1 above are related to the various abstract ideas as noted. That is each are related to managing a wagering game which is a fundamental economic practice (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A)). Additionally, the claims can be done as a mental process as two people talking to each other to determine what characters they want to bet on. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because as noted above each of the additional limitations do not provide a practical application but rather just a means to implement the abstract idea in a technological environment which the MPEP is clear is not enough to provide for a practical application (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements, as noted above, are either basic computing parts or are already well-known in the art.
All dependent claims have been evaluated but they do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claims as they just add additional abstract ideas to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(e) the invention was described in a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or on an international application by another who has fulfilled the requirements of paragraphs (1), (2), and (4) of section 371(c) of this title before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent.
The changes made to 35 U.S.C. 102(e) by the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) and the Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2002 do not apply when the reference is a U.S. patent resulting directly or indirectly from an international application filed before November 29, 2000. Therefore, the prior art date of the reference is determined under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) prior to the amendment by the AIPA (pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)).
Claims 1, 20, 21, 23-25, 27-29, and 31-33 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0105464 to Storm
The applied reference has a common joint inventor and assignee with the instant application. Based upon the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the reference, it constitutes prior art. This rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) might be overcome either by a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that any invention disclosed but not claimed in the reference was derived from the inventor or joint inventors (i.e., the inventive entity) of this application and is thus not the invention “by another,” or if the same invention is not being claimed, by an appropriate showing under 37 CFR 1.131(a).
With regard to claim 1, Storm discloses an apparatus comprising: a non-transitory medium having stored thereon a plurality of instructions that when executed by a processor cause the processor to: display a live feed of an event wherein the live feed includes displaying live a plurality of objects that are part of the event, wherein the event is a contest, and the plurality of objects are players or items that are used in the contest and are native content of the live feed (0103); overlay a touch-sensitive interface on the live feed of the event (0104); detect a touch of at least two objects of the plurality of objects that are native content of the live feed (0104 wherein they touch the player and the base that the player is expected to go); generate a proposition, wherein the proposition is a prediction of a contest event involving the at least two objects, the contest event being determined based on respective roles of the at least two objects in a context of the contest, wherein generating the proposition comprises (0104): detecting a selection of a player in the contest (0104); detecting a selection of a location in a field of play of the contest (0104); and determining the contest event based on a logical relationship between the player, the contest, and the location in the field of play (0104 such as determining a single, double, homerun etc.); and communicate the proposition (0104-0107).
With regard to claim 20, Storm discloses that the processor is configured to receive a data feed providing information regarding events occurring after the start of the contest and before an end of the contest and calculate in real time probability of the context event occurring (0104-0107).
With regard to claim 21¸Storm discloses further comprising an odds database soring statistics about other events from other contests occurring prior to the contest (0097).
Claims 23-25 and 27-29 are mirrored claims to claims 1, 20 and 21 and are rejected in like manner.
With regard to claims 31-33, Storm discloses that the contest is baseball and the at least two objects include a base and a player, and wherein generating the proposition comprising generating a proposition that the player will reach the based, in response to a touch of the base and the player (0104).
Response to Arguments
The previous rejection based upon 35 USC 112 has been withdrawn based upon Applicant’s amendments to the claims that deleted the language which caused the problem.
With regard to the rejection based upon 35 USC 101, Applicant argues, “Applicant has stricken all limitations that are related to wagering (calculating odds, receiving indications to make a wager, and forming wagers), and has specifically recited communicating the generated proposition,” (Arguments, page 8). Applicant is reminded that “proposition” in the context of the present claim is a specific type of wager (e.g. a “prop bet” or “proposition bet”). Applicant then continues “communicating a generated proposition to a computer is not a method of organizing human activity,” (Arguments, page 8). Applicant is reminded that the decision whether to reject a claim under 35 USC 101 “does not depend simply on the draftsman’s art” (MPEP 2106 II). Second, the communication here 1) is part of organizing human activity as it is part of the rules of the wagering game; and 2) is a mental process because two people having a conversation would be communicating and merely adding that to computer arts is not sufficient to bring into patent eligibility.
Applicant then argues that the claims cannot be done in the human mind because one could not figure out a logical relationship without further information (Arguments, page 8). This argument is not found convincing as a two people watching a game and one player points to the batter and then points to second base could clearly be understood as “I think the batter is going to second base.” Two people there would clearly be able to understand the context of the situation and the signals being provided and thus is merely a mental process.
Applicant’s arguments that there is an improvement to a computer (Arguments, page 9) have been considered but are not found convincing. Rather the computer is being used as a tool, or in other words the abstract idea is simply applied to a technological field of use which is not sufficient to bring the claim into practical application (See MPEP2106.04(d)I).
Finally, Applicant argues that the claims are significantly more than the abstract idea (Arguments, pages 9-10). However, this is not found convincing as Applicant is essentially arguing that the limitations of the abstract idea are significantly more than the abstract idea. It is unclear how part of the abstract idea itself makes it significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, this argument is not found to be convincing.
Finally, Applicant has deleted large portions of the claims which not make the claims rejected under prior art which clearly reads on the claim limitations as presently amended.
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 Jay Liddle whose telephone number is (571)270-1226. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715