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 09/16/2026. Presently, claims 1-15 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 1-15 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) a method incorporating timing sensitive logic and data synchronization for a distributed wagering system (certain methods of organizing human activity), the method comprising: receiving via a communication circuit, from a first user of a plurality of users, a wager on an event, the wager including a total wager amount (mental process; certain methods of organizing human activity); responsive to receiving the wager, executing (certain methods of organizing human activity), by at least one processor, a distributed transaction process incorporating multiple systems, including: determining via the at least one processor (i) a first portion of the total wager amount as a book wager between the first user and a book, defining as a first wager solely between the first user and the book, (mental process; certain methods of organizing human activity), and (ii) a second wager a portion of the total wager amount, defining as a second wager, as a pool wager between the book and a pool, defining as a second wager solely between the book and the pool, wherein the book and pool are implemented as book and pool systems respectively thereby providing a seamless single-wager experience when the wager is partially hedged via the pool in the background (mental process; certain methods of organizing human activity); concurrently transmitting with less than a threshold time delay, via two transmission executed by the communication circuit the first portion to the book system and the second portion to the pool system, to cause synchronized formation of the book and pool wagers simultaneously, in response to the receiving the wager on the book and pool systems, respectively, wherein the first wager is not formed until the second wager is formed (certain methods of organizing human activity and/or extra solution activity)and setting and maintaining the wager in an irrevocable locked data-state during the concurrently transmitting, such that the irrevocable locked data-state is maintained until a predetermined release condition is detected (certain methods of organizing human activity) wherein finalization of the book wager is delayed until receiving, by the book, a transmission indicating finalization of odds by the pool system for the pool wager, so that the book and pool systems have matching odds for the wager (certain methods of organizing human activity), and wherein the predetermined release condition is met by the communication circuit receiving the transmission from the pool system indicating the finalization of the odds (certain methods of organizing human activity); and resolving (i) the book wager and the pool wager based on an outcome of the event and (ii) when the outcome is a win, calculating via the at least one processor a payment proportion to the odds of the pool wager and the first portion of the total wager amount in the book wager (mental process; certain methods of organizing human activity). Here each of these steps listed as a mental process could be done in the mind or using pen and paper because a user could determine the wager according to portions and then set the odds of the book wager to match those of the pool. The claims above are found to also be certain methods of organizing human activity because each of the above elements are set as rules for managing a wagering game which as noted in the MPEP is considered to be an abstract idea (See 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) and in particular, (ii)). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims are, at best, just applied to a generic computing environment that is the claims are just applied to a generic processor. 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 is a processor found only in the preamble to the claim and this additional elements is only generic computing components which the Supreme Court in Alice determined is not sufficient to bring claims into patent eligibility.
All dependent claims have been analyzed but they do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant again argues that the claims do not involve an abstract idea. However, as noted above, these are still viewed as rules to manage a game. Applicant also argues “the claimed invention improves the functioning of the computer itself as well as technical field,” (arguments, page 8). The computer does not run any faster based on Applicant’s claims, nor any more efficiently, rather the computer is just used as a tool to coordinate the rules of how a wager is managed. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not convincing.
Applicant’s argument that “the examiner’s characterization overreads the claim at an impermissible level of abstraction and disregards the specific ordered combination actually recited,” (Arguments, page 8) has been considered but is not found convincing. Applicant is reminded that parent application 13/762,795 had similar concepts and the 101 rejection was affirmed by the Board.
Applicant arguments that the user’s experience is enhanced (Arguments, page 8), which may or may not be true, is not found convincing because there is no exception listed of “enhancing a user experience” that overcomes a 101 rejection. Further, whether there is a prior art rejection listed or not has no bearing on the 101 decision as it is different parts of the statute that are not dependent upon each other.
As Applicant has provided no convincing evidence as to why the rejection based upon 35 USC 101 should be withdrawn, it is maintained as above.
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
