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
Claims 1, 5, 10, 13 and 18 have been amended.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 7/21/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of 12,277,836 has been reviewed and is NOT accepted.
The Applicant cited on the Terminal Disclaimer must be cited exactly as it is cited on the application data sheet and or filing receipt and also in its entirety. For example, “EDATANETWORKS INC.”
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 18 – 20 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.
Claims 18 recite limitations in parentheses (bigger odds against winning, larger donations for a win) and (donations only for wins against high odds) which makes in unclear whether they are required limitation. Consequently they render the claims indefinite. Examiner suggests using a wherein clause to affirmatively claim the limitations. Respective dependent claims 19 and 20 inherit these issues from their parent claims.
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.
This subject matter eligibility analysis follows the latest guidance for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claims 1 – 11, 13 – 16, 18 and 19 are drawn to a method.
Claims 12, 17, 20 are drawn to a computer readable medium.
Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1: Does the Claim recite an Abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Claims 1 - 11 are exemplary because they require substantially the same operative limitations of the remaining claims 12 – 20. Examiner has underlined the claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, discussed in detail in the paragraphs that follow.
A method comprising:
rendering an interface screen on a network-enabled computing device enabled to:
scroll vertically to be visible to a wagerer;
change horizontal alignment thereof with at least one of the top and bottom of the rendered interface screen when smaller than the vertical size thereof; and
receive from the wagerer:
an identification of an affinity entity; and
a wager placed by the wagerer on a possible outcome of a game;
when:
the possible outcome of the game actually occurs in the game such that the wagerer wins the wager;
and the possible outcome of the game actually occurs at a time in the game when the probability of the possible outcome occurring during the game did not exceed a predetermined winning odds threshold;
then:
credit a donation of an amount to an account corresponding to the affinity entity, wherein the amount of the donation is derived using:
a currency amount of the wager;
and a factor selected from the group consisting of:
the probability of the outcome actually occurring at the time when the outcome actually occurred;
the predetermined winning odds threshold;
and a combination of the foregoing.
The claims recite italicized limitations that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, namely, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity
More specifically, under this grouping, the italicized limitations represent fundamental economic principles or practices. For example, the italicized limitations are directed towards making of a donation based upon a game outcome that a user wagers upon. Specifically the wagering upon a game outcome that is associated with a probability of occurrence and upon occurrence of the game outcome crediting a donation amount to an affinity entity based upon the wager amount factor comprising the probability and/or a predetermined odds threshold. This represents a fundamental economic practice, namely, exchanging consideration based on odds and outcomes.
This also represents the managing of interactions between people, i.e. users playing a wagering game. Furthermore, to the extent that a game is a social activity, this also falls with the enumerated abstract ideas.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
Although the claims recite additional limitations, these limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require additional limitations including an interface, network-enabled computing devices a web platform (claim 4) for utilizing various algorithms
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, since the additional limitations, individually or in combination, are indistinguishable from a computer used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, the analysis continues to Step 2B, below.
Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, as pointed out above, the claimed invention recites additional elements facilitating implementation of the abstract idea. For example, the recitations of utilization of interface, network-enabled computing devices a web platform, etc. used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility. These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer,’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
In addition to the abstract ideas indicated above, the claims include additional elements, such as: scroll vertically to be visible to a wagerer; change horizontal alignment thereof with at least one of the top and bottom of the rendered interface screen when smaller than the vertical size thereof.
As claimed, these additional elements are viewed as mere TYPE OF EXTRA SOLUTION ACTIVITY, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and thus does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05).
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Applicant’s own specification establishes that these additional elements are generic: [0090] Any networked computing device depicted in environment 100 seen in FIG. 1 may reside on including a processor and memory, such as a personal computer, workstation, server, portable computer, mobile device, personal digital assistant, laptop, tablet, smart phone, WAP phone, an interactive television, video display terminals, gaming consoles, electronic reading device, and portable electronic devices or a combination of these. Each networked computing device may include one or more microprocessors that may be any type of processor, such as, for example, any type of general-purpose microprocessor or microcontroller, a digital signal processing (DSP) processor, an integrated circuit, a programmable read-only memory (PROM), or any combination thereof. One or more of the networked computing devices may include any type of computer memory that is located either internally or externally such as, for example, random-access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), compact disc read-only memory (CDROM), electro-optical memory, magneto-optical memory, erasable programmable read- only memory (EPROM), and electrically-erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), or the like. One or more of the networked computing devices may include one or more input devices, such as a keyboard, mouse, camera, touch screen and a microphone, and may also include one or more output devices such as a display screen and a speaker. One or more of the networked computing devices may include a network interface in order to communicate with other components, to serve an application and other applications, and perform other computing applications by connecting to network (or multiple networks) capable of carrying data including the Internet, Ethernet, plain old telephone service (POTS) line, public switch telephone network (PSTN), integrated services digital network (ISDN), digital subscriber line (DSL), coaxial cable, fiber optics, satellite, mobile, wireless (e.g. Wi-Fi, WiMAX), SS7 signaling network, fixed line, local area network, wide area network, and others, including any combination of these. Although only one loyalty system 20 is shown for clarity, there may be multiple loyalty systems 26 or groups of loyalty systems 26 distributed over a wide geographic area and connected via e.g. network. One or more of the networked computing devices may include may be connected to the Internet or other network in order to interact and connect with one or more booking entities 104, one or more wagerer funds holding financial institutions 102C, one or more affinity entities 1066.
Therefore, these elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Moreover, the claims do not recite improvements to another technology or technical field. Nor, do the claims improve the functioning of the underlying computer itself -- they merely recite generic computing elements. Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing: the underlying computing elements remain the same.
Concerning preemption, the Federal Circuit has said in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of cffDNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claim 1-8, 10-14 and 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-4, 6-8, 10-13 and 16-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,277,836 in view of Bledsoe et al (US 2014/0078086) . Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-13 and 16-20 of US Patent No. 12,277,836 anticipate the broader or more generic claims 1-8, 10-14 and 17-20 of now pending application ‘295. However, U.S. Patent No. 12,277,836 recites claim terminology directed towards a competition, wherein application ‘295 recites claim language directed towards a game. However, as used throughout the claims of ‘295, a game is between at least two contestants (see at least claim 2 and paragraph 0010-0012 of ‘295 specification) that are attempting to win a contest and are thus competing with one another, thereby making the game a competition similar to the competition as claimed by U.S. Patent No. 12,277,836.
U.S. Patent No. 12,277,836 further fails to recite in part “rendering an interface screen on a network-enabled computing device enabled to: scroll vertically to be visible to a wagerer; change horizontal alignment thereof with at least one of the top and bottom of the rendered interface screen when smaller than the vertical size thereof;” However, Bledsoe teaches a mobile device that can be used to play games (Bledsoe 0013, 0040). Fujioka further teaches the use of a user interface that is presented on the display wherein dues to the content and size of the display the UI can provide toolbars that are used to scroll the display horizontally and vertically (Bledsoe 0041).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify U.S. Patent No. 12,277,836 in view of Bledsoe by using a known technique to modify similar devices in the same way by utilizing a scrolling feature of the UI to scroll horizontally and vertically. This would be beneficial as the system can allow the user to view off-screen content of a UI that the user may not be able to see otherwise, thereby enhancing the user experience of the UI.
A claim chart has been provided below showing the differences.
Application 17/963,295
U.S. Patent No. 12,277,836
A method comprising:
rendering an interface screen on a network-enabled computing device enabled to:
scroll vertically to be visible to a wagerer;
change horizontal alignment thereof with at least one of the top and bottom of the rendered interface screen when smaller than the vertical size thereof; and
receiving from a wagerer:
an identification of an affinity entity; and
a wager placed by the wagerer on a possible outcome of a game;
when:
the possible outcome of the game actually occurs in the game such that the wagerer wins the wager;
and the possible outcome of the game actually occurs at a time in the game when the probability of the possible outcome occurring during the game did not exceed a predetermined winning odds threshold;
then:
crediting a donation of an amount to an account corresponding to the affinity entity, wherein the amount of the donation is derived using:
a currency amount of the wager;
and a factor selected from the group consisting of:
the probability of the outcome actually occurring at the time when the outcome actually occurred (bigger odds against winning, larger donations for a win);
the predetermined winning odds threshold (donations only for wins against high odds);
and a combination of the foregoing.
A method comprising:
receiving and sending interactive network communications, respectively from and to, a virtual reality headset worn by a real world wagerer, wherein the interactive network communications include renderings of a virtual reality competition taking place in real time in a metaverse environment;
receiving, via the interactive network communications, from the wagerer:
an identification of an affinity entity; and
a wager placed by the wagerer on a possible outcome of the competition;
when:
the possible outcome of the competition actually occurs in the competition such that the wagerer wins the wager;
and the possible outcome of the competition actually occurs at a time in the competition when the probability of the possible outcome occurring during the competition did not exceed a predetermined winning odds threshold;
then:
crediting a donation of an amount to an account corresponding to the affinity entity, wherein the amount of the donation is derived using:
a currency amount of the wager;
and a factor selected from the group consisting of:
the probability of the outcome actually occurring at the time when the outcome actually occurred (bigger odds against winning, larger donations for a win);
the predetermined winning odds threshold (donations only for wins against high odds);
and a combination of the foregoing.
2. The method as defined in Claim 1, wherein:
the game is a contest that can be won by only one of plurality of contestants each having a geographic location;
the wager placed by the wagerer is that the one said contestant will win the contest;
the affinity entity has a geographic location;
the one said contestant who wins the contest has a geographic location;
and the donation to the affinity entity is credited only when a distance between the geographic location of the affinity and a geographic location of the one said contestant who wins the contest does not exceed a predetermined travel threshold.
2. The method as defined in Claim 1, wherein:
the competition a pugilistic virtual reality (VR) competition wagering event
between a first contestant and second contestant that can be won by only one of the first contestant and the second contestant;
each of the first contestant and the second contestant is identified by a geographic location;
the wager placed by the wagerer designates one of the first contestant and the second contestant;
the affinity entity is identified by a geographic location; and
the donation to the affinity entity is credited only when a distance between the geographic location of the affinity and a geographic location of the one of the first contestant and the second contestant who wins the contest does not exceed a predetermined travel threshold.
3. The method as defined in Claim 2, wherein:
the contest that can be won by only one of a first team and a second team;
the wager placed by the wagerer is that the second team will win the contest;
at the time when the possible outcome actually occurred, there was a number of positive points for a spread bet that the first team would win the contest as set by the booking entity;
and the wagerer won the wager only when the second team lost the contest to the first team by less than the number of positive points for the spread bet that the first team would win the contest.
3. The method as defined in Claim 1, wherein:
the contest that can be won by only one of a first team and a second team;
the wager placed by the wagerer is that the second team will win the contest;
at the time when the possible outcome actually occurred, there was a number of positive points for a spread bet that the first team would win the contest as set by the booking entity; and
the wagerer won the wager only when the second team lost the contest to the first team by less than the number of positive points for the spread bet that the first team would win the contest.
4. The method as defined in Claim 2, wherein the predetermined travel threshold is derived using: a web mapping platform using an online navigation algorithm; and one or more travel modes used by the navigation algorithm.
4. The method as defined in Claim 2, wherein the predetermined travel threshold is derived using: a web mapping platform using an online navigation algorithm; and one or more travel modes used by the navigation algorithm.
5. The method as defined in Claim 1, wherein the wager is received by a booking entity;
6. The method as defined in Claim 1, wherein: the wager is received by a booking entity; and the time that the probability of the possible outcome occurs is set by the booking entity.
6. The method as defined in Claim 5, wherein the time that the probability of the possible outcome occurs is set by the booking entity.
6. The method as defined in Claim 1, wherein: the wager is received by a booking entity; and the time that the probability of the possible outcome occurs is set by the booking entity.
7. The method as defined in Claim 5, wherein the probability of the possible outcome occurs during the game is set by the booking entity.
7. The method as defined in Claim 1, wherein: the wager is received by a booking entity; and the probability of the possible outcome occurs during the competition is set by the booking entity.
8. The method as defined in Claim 5, wherein the donation of the amount to the account corresponding to the affinity entity is debited to an account corresponding to the booking entity.
8. The method as defined in Claim 1, wherein: the wager is received by a booking entity; and the donation of the amount to the account corresponding to the affinity entity is debited to an account corresponding to the booking entity.
10. The method as defined in Claim 1, wherein the probability of the outcome actually occurring at the time during the game results in: a larger said donation when said probability of the outcome actually occurring at the time during the game is larger; and a smaller said donation when said probability of the outcome actually occurring at the time during the game is smaller
10. The method as defined in Claim 1, wherein the probability of the outcome actually occurring at the time during the competition results in: a larger said donation when said probability of the outcome actually occurring at the time during the competition is larger; and a smaller said donation when said probability of the outcome actually occurring at the time during the competition is smaller
11. The method as defined in Claim 1. wherein the amount of the donation is proportional to the probability of the outcome actually occurring at the time.
11. The method as defined in Claim 1, wherein the amount of the donation is proportional to the probability of the outcome actually occurring at the time.
12. A non-transitory, computer readable medium or media having stored thereon computer-interpretable instructions which when executed by hardware performs the method defined in Claim 1.
12. A non-transitory, computer readable medium or media having stored thereon computer-interpretable instructions which when executed by hardware performs the method defined in Claim 1
13. A method comprising:
rendering an interface screen on a network-enabled computing device enabled to:
scroll vertically to be visible to a wagerer;
change horizontal alignment thereof with at least one of the top and bottom of the rendered interface screen when smaller than the vertical size thereof;
receiving from a wagerer:
an identification of an affinity entity: and
wager placed by the wagerer on a possible outcome of a game;
when:
the possible outcome of the game did not actually occur in the game such that the wagerer loses the wager:
and at the time when the possible outcome did not actually occur, an odds difference in:
the probability of the possible outcome actually occurring; and
the probability of the possible outcome of the game not actually occurring in the game is less than a predetermined losing odds threshold
then:
crediting a donation of an amount to an account corresponding to the affinity entity, wherein the amount of the donation is derived using:
a currency amount of the wager:
and the odds difference.
13. A method comprising:
receiving and sending interactive network communications, respectively from and to, a virtual reality headset worn by a real world wagerer, wherein the interactive network communications include renderings of a virtual reality competition taking place in real time in a metaverse environment;
receiving, via the interactive network communications, from the wagerer:
an identification of an affinity entity; and
a wager placed by the wagerer on a possible outcome of the competition;
when:
the possible outcome of the competition did not actually occur in the competition such that the wagerer loses the wager;
and at the time when the possible outcome did not actually occur, an odds difference in:
the probability of the possible outcome actually occurring; and
the probability of the possible outcome of the competition not actually occurring in the competition is less than a predetermined losing odds threshold;
then:
crediting a donation of an amount to an account corresponding to the affinity entity, wherein the amount of the donation is derived using:
a currency amount of the wager;
and the odds difference.
14. The method as defined in Claim 13, wherein:
the wager is received by a booking entity;
the time that the probability of the possible outcome occurs is set by the booking entity the probability of the possible outcome occurs during the game is set by the booking entity:
the donation of the amount to the account corresponding to the affinity entity is debited to an account corresponding to the booking entity: and
16. The method as defined in Claim 13, wherein:
the wager is received by a booking entity;
the time that the probability of the possible outcome occurs is set by the booking entity; the probability of the possible outcome occurs during the competition is set by the booking entity;
the donation of the amount to the account corresponding to the affinity entity is debited to an account corresponding to the booking entity; and
17. A non-transitory, computer readable medium or media having stored thereon computer-interpretable instructions which when executed by hardware performs the method defined in Claim 13.
17. A non-transitory, computer readable medium or media having stored thereon computer-interpretable instructions which when executed by hardware performs the method defined in Claim 13.
18. A method comprising:
rendering an interface screen on a network-enabled computing device enabled to:
scroll vertically to be visible to a wagerer;
change horizontal alignment thereof with at least one of the top and bottom of the rendered interface screen when smaller than the vertical size thereof; and
receiving from a wagerer:
an identification of an affinity entity; and
a wager placed by the wagerer on a possible outcome of a game, wherein:
the game is a contest that can be won by only one of plurality of contestants each having a geographic location;
the wager placed by the wagerer is that the one said contestant will win the contest;
the affinity entity has a geographic location;
the one said contestant who wins the contest has a geographic location;
the contest can be won by only one of a first team and a second team;
the wager placed by the wagerer that the second team will win the contest;
at the time when the possible outcome actually occurred, there was a number of positive points for a spread bet that the first team would win the contest as set by a booking entity;
and the wagerer is won the wager only when the second team lost the contest to the first team by less than the number of positive points for the spread bet that the first team would win the contest;
and when:
a distance between the geographic location of the affinity and a geographic location of the one said contestant who wins the contest does not exceed a predetermined travel threshold;
the possible outcome of the game actually occurs in the game such that the wagerer wins the wager;
and the possible outcome of the game actually occurs at a time in the game when the probability of the possible outcome occurring during the game did not exceed a predetermined winning odds threshold;
then:
crediting a donation of an amount to an account corresponding to the affinity entity, wherein the amount of the donation is derived using:
a currency amount of the wager;
and a factor selected from the group consisting of: the probability of the outcome actually occurring at the time when the outcome actually occurred (bigger odds against winning, larger donations for a win);
the predetermined winning odds threshold (donations only for wins against high odds);
and a combination of the foregoing.
18. A method comprising:
assessing a spectator access fee to a real world wagerer to spectate a virtual reality competition taking place in real time in a metaverse environment;
receiving and sending interactive network communications, respectively from and to,
the virtual reality headset worn by the real world wagerer, wherein the interactive network communications include renderings of the virtual reality competition taking place in real time in the metaverse environment;
receiving, via the interactive network communications, from the wagerer:
an identification of an affinity entity; and
a wager placed by the wagerer on a possible outcome of the competition, wherein:
the competition is a contest that can be won by only one of plurality of contestants each having a geographic location;
the wager placed by the wagerer is that the one said contestant will win the contest;
the affinity entity has a geographic location;
the one said contestant who wins the contest has a geographic location;
the contest can be won by only one of a first team and a second team;
the wager placed by the wagerer that the second team will win the contest;
at the time when the possible outcome actually occurred, there was a number of positive points for a spread bet that the first team would win the contest as set by a booking entity;
and the wagerer is won the wager only when the second team lost the contest to the first team by less than the number of positive points for the spread bet that the first team would win the contest;
and when:
a distance between the geographic location of the affinity and a geographic location of the one said contestant who wins the contest does not exceed a predetermined travel threshold;
the possible outcome of the competition actually occurs in the competition such that the wagerer wins the wager;
and the possible outcome of the competition actually occurs at a time in the competition when the probability of the possible outcome occurring during the competition did not exceed a predetermined winning odds threshold;
then:
crediting a donation of an amount to an account corresponding to the affinity entity, wherein the amount of the donation is derived using:
a currency amount of the wager;
and a factor selected from the group consisting of the probability of the outcome actually occurring at the time when the outcome actually occurred (bigger odds against winning, larger donations for a win);
the predetermined winning odds threshold (donations only for wins against high odds);
and a combination of the foregoing.
19. The method as defined in Claim 18, wherein the game is of a game type selected from the group consisting of:
a game of skill;
a game of chance; and
a game of a combination of skill and chance.
19. The method as defined in Claim 18, wherein the competition is of a competition type selected from the group consisting of a competition of skill;
a competition of chance; and
a competition of a combination of skill and chance.
20. A non-transitory, computer readable medium or media having stored thereon computer-interpretable instructions which when executed by hardware performs the method defined in Claim 19.
20. A non-transitory, computer readable medium or media having stored thereon computer-interpretable instructions which when executed by hardware performs the method defined in Claim 19.
Relevant Prior Art
Regarding the prior art the Examiner notes that Smith (US 2002/0111815) discloses a system for making charitable donations to a charity wherein players can improve their odds of winning by designating a portion of their funds or net proceeds to a charity of their choice. However, Smith fails to disclose or teach wherein a possible outcome of the game occurs at a time when the probability of the possible outcome does not exceed a predetermined winning odds threshold and then crediting a donation of an amount to an account corresponding to the affinity entity, wherein the amount of the donation is derived using: a currency amount of the wager; and a factor selected from the group consisting of: the probability of the outcome actually occurring at the time when the outcome actually occurred; the predetermined winning odds threshold ; and a combination of the foregoing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the Examiner maintains the rejection of claim 18 – 19 in view of Independent claim 18 still containing limitations in parentheses that render the claims indefinite. See claims 18 – 19 and above rejection.
Regarding the rejection of the claims on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting, the Examiner notes that this rejection is being maintained in view of the Applicants Terminal Disclaimer being not approved. The Applicant is directed to the rejection above, that specifies why the Terminal Disclaimer was not approved.
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Applicant has amended the claims to include the limitation of “rendering an interface screen on a network-enabled computing device enabled to: scroll vertically to be visible to a wagerer; change horizontal alignment thereof with at least one of the top and bottom of the rendered interface screen when smaller than the vertical size thereof;”. The Applicant further argues and states, “This recited limitation is similar to the portion of the claim at issue in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) in which the Federal Circuit held sufficient to establish statutory patentability, as it provides an improvement to "conventional user interfaces" by describing "how to display" particular data. As it provides an improvement in computer functionality, referring to MPEP §2106.05(a), it integrates the abstract idea into a practical application (as that term is used in the previously-cited Guidance) and the claims are thereby not directed to the abstract idea. As such, the Applicant respectfully submits that amendments obviate the 35 U.S.C.” (Remarks page 10). The Examiner notes that the claim limitation merely utilize an interface to perform conventional display operations that are generic to user interfaces that is scrolling in a vertical or horizontal manner. Other than the mere allegation of “it provides an improvement to conventional user interfaces” by describing how to display particular data,” the Applicant fails to provide specific alleged improvements to the a user interface, the Applicant fails to provide any support or persuasive evidence that shows how the claimed limitation align with the fact patterns of Core Wireless wherein the claims were found to be subject matter eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Examiner maintains the 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 ROSS A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5911. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 4pm.
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.
/RAW/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
11/15/2025
/KANG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715