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 – 20 have been amended.
Claims 1 – 20 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.
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 – 7 are drawn to a system.
Claims 8 – 14 are drawn to a method
Claims 15 – 20 are drawn to a product.
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 - 7 are exemplary because they require substantially the same operative limitations of the remaining claims (claims 8-20) Examiner has underlined the claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, discussed in detail in the paragraphs that follow.
1. (Currently Amended) Computer system for calculating odds for a selection of at least one of a plurality of different betting markets, the computer system comprising:
a user interface configured to display a base betting market that is displayed in the user interface at a first time, wherein the plurality of different betting markets, which are derivable from the base betting market, are not displayed at the first time;
an odds calculator comprising a first communication interface and a processor coupled to the first communication interface,
the first communication interface being configured to receive one or more selections and to provide the selections to the processor at different times after the first time, wherein the selections construct one of the plurality of different betting markets from the base betting market, wherein the constructed one of the plurality of different betting market is displayed on the user interface after the selections have been received, wherein the selections comprise a number of options that represent a bet and zero or more options that represent an insurance,
wherein the processor is configured to dynamically calculate the odds for the selections based on individual probabilities of the single options included in the selections, and to output the calculated odds via the first communication interface to be displayed on the user interface, wherein the calculated odds update dynamically on the user interface as the selections are received.
The claims recite italicized limitations that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, namely, Mental Processes
More specifically, under this grouping, the italicized limitations represent concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). For example, the italicized limitations are drawn to the calculation of odds based upon probabilities of selections and the presenting and/or outputting of the odd and/or probabilities
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 as follow, (emphasis added): a first communication interface and processor receiving data, and a communication interface outputting data, a processor calculating data such as odds and various databases.
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. Applicant has claimed computer processors, databases and communication interfaces. However, all of these elements viewed individually and as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
As the Alice court cautioned, citing Flook, patent eligibility cannot depend simply on the draftsman’s art. Here, amending the claims with generic computing elements does not (in this Examiner’s opinion), confer eligibility.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Larsen (US 2009/0280906) establishes that these additional elements (i.e. databases) are generic:
[0060] Referring now to FIGS. 2 and 2A, an example context diagram of download and configuration server system 201 is shown including control station 203 (for example, a Control Station with a display and a user interface), download and configuration services block 205 (including, for example, a download server or WWW accessible service, a download handler server or WWW accessible service, a configuration server or WWW accessible service, an option configuration server or WWW accessible service, a scheduler server or WWW accessible service, and a scheduler server or WWW accessible service), download and configuration database block 207 (including, for example, conventional storage depositories such as containing a download database, a schedule database, and a configuration database), network components block 209 (for example, conventional hardware and software to support IIS, MSMQ, and DNS, a SQL report server, an active directory, a certificate server, a download library, and an SDDP (Software Download Distribution Port), G2S (Game-to-Server) host block 211 (including, for example, a download handler, an executive service, an option configuration handler, a G2S engine, a delivery agent, and a G2S WWW accessible service), and an electronic gaming machine (hereinafter "EGM") block 213 (including, for example, a facility floor of network connected gaming machines and tables which may each include an iView or similar product features and/or a gaming management processor unit, which are individually identifiable and addressable over the network.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Casey (US 2022040612) establishes that these additional elements (i.e. processor and communication interfaces) are generic:
[0041] Game controller 60 is in data communication with player interface 50 and typically includes a processor 62 that processes game play instructions in accordance with game play rules and outputs game play outcomes to the display(s) 54. Typically, the game play rules are stored as program code in a memory 64 but can also be hardwired. In some embodiments, the memory 64 may also store data indicative of a plurality of symbols, pay tables, images, and other information to be used in games. Herein the term “processor” is used to refer generically to any device that can process game play instructions in accordance with game play rules and may include: a microprocessor, microcontroller, programmable logic device or other computational device, a general purpose computer (e.g. a PC) or a server. That is, a processor may be provided by any suitable logic circuitry for receiving inputs, processing them in accordance with instructions stored in memory and generating outputs (for example on the display). Such processors are sometimes also referred to as central processing units (CPUs). Most processors are general purpose units, however, it is also known to provide a specific purpose processor using an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) or a field programmable gate array (FPGA).
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amaitis (US2012/0034974) in view of Beaudet et al (US 5,689,668)
As per claim 1,
a user interface configured to display a base betting market that is displayed in the user interface at a first time, wherein the plurality of different betting markets, which are derivable from the base betting market,…; (Amaitis discloses a user interface that allows a player to select a plurality of different betting markets (i.e. one or more elements) (Amaitis 0100, 0119, 0129, 0124, 0125) wherein Amaitis discloses that a player may be required to place a wager on a first element (i.e. betting market) before a next wagerable element (i.e. betting market opens up). This the second element is derivable from the first element) (Amaitis 00136)
an odds calculator comprising a first communication interface and a processor coupled to the first communication interface, (Amaitis discloses the communicating by means of a display and the calculation of odds by a processor) (Amaitis 0136)
the first communication interface being configured to receive one or more selections and to provide the selections to the processor at different times after the first time, wherein the selections construct one of the plurality of different betting markets from the base betting market, wherein the constructed one of the plurality of different betting market is displayed on the user interface after the selections have been received, wherein the selections comprise a number of options that represent a bet and zero or more options that represent an insurance, (Amaitis discloses a user interface that allows a player to select a plurality of different betting markets (i.e. one or more elements) (Amaitis 0100, 0119, 0129, 0124, 0125) wherein Amaitis discloses that a player may be required to place a wager on a first element (i.e. betting market) before a next wagerable element (i.e. betting market opens up and able to be selected). This the second element is derivable from the first element) (Amaitis 00136). Amaitis further discloses the selection of parlay wagers that a player can build upon a user interface (Amaitis 0136, 0146). Regarding the limitation of “wherein the selections comprise … zero or more options that represent an insurance”, the Examiner notes that this can reasonably be interpreted as meaning that there is no option for insurance require or displayed for the use to select when betting.)
wherein the processor is configured to dynamically calculate the odds for the selections based on individual probabilities of the single options included in the selections, and to output the calculated odds via the first communication interface to be displayed on the user interface, wherein the calculated odds update dynamically on the user interface as the selections are received. (Amaitis discloses the calculation of odds for individual elements that comprise a leg of a parlay wager when it is made and the calculation of odds of the entire parlay wager as legs or elements are added to the parlay wager. Amaitis discloses the displaying of the odds to the user) (Amaitis 0125, 0127, 0136, 0138)
Amaitis fails to disclose:
… are not displayed at the first time
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Beaudet teaches the use of a display wherein a user interface is generated that comprises a heterochiral menu items that are displayed to the user for selection wherein at least a first menu item is presented to a user at a first time and then after a user selects the menu item, a second menu item that is derivable from the first menu item is displayed upon the user (Beaudet 3:48 – 55)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Amaitis in view of Beaudet to use a known technique to improve similar user interfaces in the same way by means of utilizing hierarchical menus to display menu elements that are selectable in a hierarchical manner wherein the selection of a first menu element at a first time enables the display and selection of a second menu element at a second time upon a display. This would be beneficial as it would enable a user to step through multiple selectable items and lead to a “fast process for implementing hierarchical menu selections in which default selection values are preset and displayed to the user for registration as option selections to implement a computer task.” (Beaudet 3:51 – 55)
As per claim 2, comprising a probability database comprising a probability for every one of the plurality of different betting markets, wherein the probability database is integrated in the odds calculator, or wherein the probability database is communicatively coupled to the odds calculator. (Amaitis discloses the determination of odds and probabilities for betting markets or events (Amaitis 0096). Amaitis specifically discloses the use of a odds database in conjunction with the determination of probabilities (Amamitis 0096), wherein the term determining in defined as “The term "determining" and grammatical variants thereof (e.g., to determine a price, determining a value, determine an object which meets a certain criterion) is used in an extremely broad sense. The term "determining" encompasses a wide variety of actions and therefore "determining" can include calculating, computing, processing, deriving, investigating, looking up (e.g., looking up in a table, a database or another data structure), ascertaining and the like. Also, "determining" can include receiving (e.g., receiving information), accessing (e.g., accessing data in a memory) and the like. Also, "determining" can include resolving, selecting, choosing, establishing, and the like.” (Amaitis 0031)
As per claim 3, the user interface comprising a second communication interface coupled to the first communication interface, wherein the user interface is configured to provide the selections to the odds calculator and to receive the calculated odds for the selections via the second communication interface. (Amaitis discloses the use a first and second interface for displaying the odds and receiving the odds to be displayed to a user. Amaitis discloses: “Some embodiments may include providing an updated odds and/or payouts to a user. Such presenting may take place through a parlay wagering interface (e.g., through a kiosk, a slot machine, a computing device, a smart phone app, at a sports book, and/or any other apparatus). For example, in some embodiments, a computing device may allow a player to play slots games, and to place parlay wagers. Such a computing device may include a server based gaming machine. Such a computing device may include a slot machine. Such parlay wagers may be based on updated odds for such a wager rather than traditional once a week published parlay odds. Though such an interface, a player may place a parlay wager based on such updated odds and/or payouts, monitor events related to placed parlay wagers, and so on.”) (Amaitis 0124)
As per claim 4, wherein the user interface is configured to display for every one of the plurality of different betting markets at least one of an individual probability or the individual odds, and after receiving the calculated odds for the selections to display the odds for the selections. (Amaitis discloses the displaying of odds for individual selectable element and updating the odds of the parlay when individual elements are added to the parlay) (Amaitis 0125 – 0127).
As per claim 5, wherein the user interface is configured to at least one of retrieve or receive at least one of the individual probabilities or the individual odds for every one of the plurality of different betting markets via the second communication interface from a probability database. (Amaitis discloses the determination of odds for each individual element and a parlay as a whole when wagered upon (Amaitis 0125 – 0127) and Amaitis discloses that the determined odds can be determined (i.e. received from a database via an interface) (Amaitis 0031)
As per claim 7, wherein the plurality of different betting markets options refer to possible results of an event with an unknown result, especially to a sports event with an unknown result. (Amaitis discloses the betting elements comprising wagering events that comprise possible events of a sporting event wherein the outcome is not known) (Amaitis 0128)
Independent claim(s) 8 and 15 is/are obvious over Amaitis and Beaudet based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 1, which are similar in claim scope.
Dependent claim(s) 9 – 12 and 16 – 19 is/are obvious over Amaitis and Beaudet based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 2 – 5 respectively, which are similar in claim scope.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but MAY be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and overcoming the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 as detailed above.
The prior art of record fails to disclose or teach the calculation of odds for the selection by “wherein the processor is configured to calculate the odds for the selections selection by calculating an overall probability for the selections selection as the result of the sum of the probabilities of the options that represent a bet divided by the difference of 1 and the sum of the probabilities of the options that represent an insurance, and by dividing the difference of 1 and a predefined odds margin by the calculated overall probability.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Please see above rejection addressing the newly amended claims in view of Amaitis and Beaudet.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Applicant argues essentially that the claims at issue are similar to the Example 37 of PEG as they present an improvement to user interfaces by utilizing 80 percent less space in a user interface. Applicant states: “As explained in the Specification, "the user is able to create any combination of options from any market with the present invention, space for displaying markets may be reduced." Specification [0019]. For example, the present disclosure describes a solution using a series of user selections to update odds to create any combination of options. This is an improvement over prior systems, which use a GUI that simply displays all the possible options for an event. The specification states the invention can use 80 percent less space in the user interface (e.g., GUI). Pg. 9. The claims recite a specific manner of achieving this solution, for example, by reciting: (1) "a user interface configured to display a base betting market that is displayed in the user interface at a first time, wherein the plurality of different betting markets, which are derivable from the base betting market, are not displayed at the first time;" (2) a "first communication interface [] configured to receive the selections and to provide the selections to the processor at different times after the first time;" (3) wherein the selections construct one of the plurality of different betting markets from the base betting market, wherein the constructed one of the plurality of different betting market is displayed on the user interface after the selections have been received." (Remarks page 12).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claims as amended recite limitations to the effect of displaying information (betting markets), receiving a user selection of a particular betting market and determining a subsequent betting market to be displayed at a subsequent time and while displaying the betting markets also displaying dynamically calculated odds based upon individual probabilities of the selected betting markets. Thus as can be seen, the claims necessitate at least one betting market displayed at one discrete time, user provided a selection of that betting market, and subsequently thereafter, the system displays a second different betting market based upon the first betting market that can be make a selection to bet or wager upon. The system further dynamically calculates and displays odds to the player as they are making these selections. This being the case, the Examiner fails to see how displaying in the case of the instant claims, 3 different types of betting data upon a display (i.e. a first market, a second market derivable from the first market and calculated odds data as a player makes selections of markets) amounts to a practical application of the abstract idea by utilizing 80 percent less space of a user interface. The Examiner notes that this type of usage of a generic computer display device does NOT change how the interface operates and does not provide an improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a).
With regards to Step 2B the Applicant further states: “In the Office Action, the Examiner argues that the claim "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)." Office Action, p. 7. However, as discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2 supra, the Specification provides sufficient details to show how the claimed features improve the technical field of graphical user interfaces. For example, the Specification describes how the present invention can drastically reduce the space used on the user interface "to create any combination of options from any market". Specification pg. 9. The improvements that address these issues are found in particular features of the claims as recited above.” (Remarks page 13 – 14)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the specification fails to show how the technical field of graphical user interfaces is improved beyond the mere generic usage of a graphical user interface to display information. The creating different combinations (displaying more or less betting markets or information) of betting markets is not a technical problem relating to graphical user interfaces, but rather more akin to an exercise in a determination of the only the most necessary data to display on the part of betting marketplace creator or game establishment, wherein they need to determine how to reduce the amount of betting information that is presented to a user so as to not overwhelm them with too many options or an overabundance of displayed data.
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
1/23/2026
/KANG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights