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, 7 and 14 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 – 6 are drawn to a method.
Claims 7 -20 are drawn to an apparatus and CRM.
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 7-13 are exemplary because they require substantially the same operative limitations of the remaining claims 1-6 and 14-20. Examiner has underlined the claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, discussed in detail in the paragraphs that follow.
7. An apparatus, comprising:
a wager engine; and
a processor configured to:
identify a sporting event, the sporting event comprising at least one participant and corresponding to a sport activity;
determine handicap information related to the sporting event;
execute , the wager engine of the apparatus, a money-management plan in accordance with a user's asset account wherein the money-management plan includes information indicative of a fractional percentage of an overall amount of money available to wager, and wherein the fractional percentage of the overall amount of money available to wager is based on a difference between the handicap information related to the sporting event and a spread for the sporting event;
determine a bet on the sporting event according to the money- management plan;
determine an outcome of the bet based on a result of the sporting event, wherein outcome indicates whether the bet was successful in view of stated odds and terms of the bet, and the handicap information;
determine an allocation of assets in the user's asset account based on the determined outcome; and
in response to the determined allocation of assets, cause an application or server associated with the user's asset account to modify read/write access on the application or server, which grants control to the wager engine to allocate the assets to the user's asset account.
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, and managing interactions between people. For example, the italicized limitations are directed towards the determination of a betting event, that comprises determining a handicap related to the event, determining the bet, offering the bet, and determining payout based upon the odds of associated with the bet being successful. This represents a fundamental economic practice, namely, exchanging consideration based on odds and outcomes. This also falls under the grouping of managing interactions between people, i.e., recording wagers according to wagering rules.
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): an apparatus comprising a processor and a user device, apparatus, and server modifying read/write access
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 an apparatus comprising a processor and a user device, apparatus, and server modifying read/write access . 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, Applicant’s own specification establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0034] In various embodiments, UE301 can be any type of device, such as, but not limited to, a mobile phone, tablet, laptop, personal computer, sensor, Internet of Things (IoT) device, autonomous machine, and any other device equipped with a cellular, wireless, or wired transceiver.
[0043] In some embodiments, processor 422 may be implemented as a general-purpose processor configured to retrieve program or software instructions from memory 430 via communication bus 424. Processor 422 may, in various embodiments, be implemented using one or more processor cores, microcontrollers, or other suitable combinations of combinatorial and sequential logic circuits.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Shaked (US 2022/0269693) own specification establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0004] Moreover, conventional systems are often inaccurate. For example, rather than waiting to account for mirroring latency, some conventional systems respond to data requests with locally available data. This, however, leads to data inaccuracies when the locally available data is out of date. For example, in many scenarios, distributed systems update data at one server, and then mirror those updates to other servers over time. Thus, when a non-updated server receives a request that requires the data and that request is received prior to a mirrored update, that server responds to client device queries with out-of-date and inaccurate data. This is particularly problematic in applications that provide sensitive data—such as digital assets or transactions maintained via a distributed digital ledger network. Using conventional systems, client devices that write data to a first server and then navigate to a different user interface (or update a user interface) will often access, receive, and display inaccurate data from a second server that does not reflect the data written.
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 –4, 7 – 11 and 14 – 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huke et al (US 2022/0092937) in view of “Understanding Spread Betting in the NFL and the Kelly Criterion” by Paul Joos, 2016 in view of Aissi (US 2014/0143149).
As per claim 1, Huke discloses:
identifying, by a device, a sporting event, the sporting event comprising at least one participant and corresponding to a sport activity; (Huke discloses a wagering system that identifies a sporting event with a participant that corresponds to a sport activity) (Huke 0066)
determining, by the device, handicap information related to the sporting event; (Huke discloses the players can make numerous types of bets such as those that cover the spread, “ To “cover” means winning by more than the “point spread”. A handicap of the “point spread” value is given to the favorite team so bettors can choose sides at equal odds. “Cover the spread” means that a favorite win an event with the handicap considered or the underdog wins with additional points” (Huke 0031). “There are numerous types of wagers the bettor can make, including, a straight bet, a money line bet, a bet with a point spread or line that bettor's team would need to cover, if the result of the game was the same as the point spread the user would not cover the spread, but instead the tie is called a push. If the user is betting on the favorite, they are giving points to the opposing side, which is the underdog or longshot. Betting on all favorites is referred to as chalk, this is typically applied to round robin, or other styles of tournaments” (Huke 0066). Thus as can be seen, Huke discloses the determination of handicaps for spread bets)
executing, by the device, a money-management plan in accordance with a user's asset account…; (Huke discloses a bettor classification module that classifies bettors as high frequency bettors if they exceed a betting threshold. This in turn is used to provide the bettor with incentives (i.e. money management plan) and offers that can be used to improve their odds that are determined by the applied status of the bettor stored in the large bettor database) (Huke 0076 – 0079)
determining, by the device, a bet on the sporting event according to a betting scheme, the money-management plan, and the handicap information; (Huke discloses the bettor placing a wager upon an identified sporting event according to the wager type (i.e. cover spread that comprises a handicap) (i.e. wager scheme) wherein the bettor may be offered incentives (i.e. money management plan) according to the classification of the bettor as a large bettor)(Huke 0076 – 0078)
placing, by the device, the bet; (Huke discloses a user placing the bet) (Huke 0066)
determining, by the device, an outcome of the bet based on outcome result of the sporting event, wherein the outcome indicates whether the bet was successful in view of stated odds and terms of the bet, and the handicap information; and (Huke discloses the determination of the outcome of the bet based upon the result of the sporting event according to the odds and type of bet comprising a handicap) (Huke 0066)
determining, by the device, an allocation of assets in the user's asset account based on the outcome. (Huke discloses the determination of a payout to a user) (Huke 0050, 0066)
Huke fails to discloses specifically:
…wherein the money-management plan includes information indicative of a fractional percentage of an overall amount of money available to wager, and wherein the fractional percentage of the overall amount of money available to wager is based on a difference between the handicap information related to the sporting event and a spread for the sporting event;
in response to the determined allocation of assets, causing an application or server associated with the user's asset account to modify read/write access on the application or server, which grants control to the wager engine to allocate the assets to the user's asset account.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Joos discloses the use of a betting or wagering plan wherein a fractional percentage of the users balance is determined based upon a formula known as the Kelly Criterion, wherein the formula takes into account the bettors handicap difference between the spread. (Joos pages 4 -5)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Huke in view of Joos to use a known technique to modify similar devices in the same way by utilizing a formula or wagering plan that accounts for the difference between a bettor’s handicap and the spread of the sporting event to determine a fractional percentage of an account balance that a user should bet. This would be beneficial as it would help a player to optimize their wagering strategy (Joos pages 4 -5)
In a similar field of endeavor, Sommer discloses a server that enables read/write access (i.e. send an offer) to a player account to effect balance or asset transfers based upon wager wins (Sommer Claims 14, 39, and 64.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Huke in view of Sommer to utilize a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way by providing write access to a server and/or wagering application that enables the transferring of a balance or assets. This would enhance the security of the system as it would only enable transfers for players that are owed money due to wagering wins.
As per claim 2, Huke discloses: further comprising performing, by the device, an electronic transfer of assets using the user's asset account and based on the allocation. (Huke discloses the use of payment processing services that are used to transfer users payouts to the user when they desire to cashout) (Huke 0050, 0052, 0066).
As per claim 3, Huke discloses: further comprising updating the handicap information based on the outcome of the sporting event. (Huke disclose the determination of a handicap that is used for a cover spread bet, A handicap of the “point spread” value is given to the favorite team", and a handicap is by definition based on the outcome of previous sporting events.) (Huke 0031, 0066)
As per claim 4, Huke discloses: wherein updating the handicap information includes: determining initial ratings associated with the at least one participant; and adjusting the initial ratings to generate modified ratings. (Huke disclose the determination of a handicap that is used for a cover spread bet . A handicap of the “point spread” value is given to the favorite team", and the term "favorite" implicitly means ratings of a team, and initial ratings are adjusted after events, otherwise the term "favorite team" would not be correct anymore after some events.) (Huke 0031, 0066)
Independent claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are made obvious by the combination of Huke, Joos, Aissi based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 1, which are similar in claim scope.
Dependent claim(s) 8 and 15 is/are made obvious by the combination of Huke, Joos, Aissi based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 2, which are similar in claim scope.
As per claim 9, wherein to identify the sporting event, the processor is further configured to receive a selection by the user via user equipment (UE). (Huke discloses a user utilizing a wagering app that is associated with user equipment to make a wager selection ) (Huke 0066, 0081, 0082)
Dependent claim(s) 10 and 16 is/are made obvious by the combination of Huke, Joos, Aissi based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 3, which are similar in claim scope.
Dependent claim(s) 11 and 17 is/are made obvious by the combination of Huke, Joos, Aissi based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 4, which are similar in claim scope.
Claim(s) 5, 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huke et al (US 2022/0092937) ) in view of “Understanding Spread Betting in the NFL and the Kelly Criterion” by Paul Joos, 2016 in view of Aissi (US 2014/0143149) in view of Lipscomb et al (US 2009/0215527).
As per claim 5, Huke fails to disclose:
wherein adjusting the initial ratings includes adjusting the initial ratings based on any injuries to the at least one participant.
However, Lipscomb discloses a wagering system wherein events that are wagered upon are handicapped. Lipscomb discloses that it is known to take player injuries into account when it comes to determining ratings associated with a handicap. Lipscomb specifically states “The skill of determining the outcomes of the events is often referred to as handicapping. This term came about in part because some bettors invested time and resources in researching information about the race participants (such as past race results, conditioning, recent injuries/problems etc.) that made the wager "handicapped" or informed. Skilled handicappers can turn this information into more educated selections or wagers. Thus, unlike casino betting where the house typically has the odds in their favor, parimutuel wagering can allow skilled individuals to make informed selections that put the odds slightly in their favor.” (Lipscomb 004).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Huke in view of Lipscomb to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way by utilizing handicapping data that is based upon ratings that are adjusted based upon player injuries. This would be beneficial as it would ensure that the house has the most up to date information when offering a wager to a bettor to thereby help ensure that they stay profitable but at the same time offering the bettor competitive odds.
Dependent claim(s) 12 and 18 is/are made obvious by the combination of Huke, Joos, Aissi and Lipscomb based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 5, which are similar in claim scope.
Claim(s) 6, 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huke et al (US 2022/0092937) ) in view of “Understanding Spread Betting in the NFL and the Kelly Criterion” by Paul Joos, 2016 in view of Aissi (US 2014/0143149) in view of Arnone et al (PH-12014500781-B1).
As per claim 6, Huke fails to disclose:
predicting a result of the sporting event using the modified ratings; and determining new ratings based on a comparison of the result and the outcome of the sporting event.
However, in a similar field of endeavor wherein users engage in wagering type game, Arnone discloses the calculation of handicaps with regards to wagers that can be made. Arnone specifically discloses the use of rankings that are utilized in handicapping game events or wagers. “rankings are then used to predict performance so handicapping can be applied. When a player's results exceed the 30 player’s expected scores, the system takes this as evidence that a player's ranking is too low, and can be adjusted upward. Similarly when a player's actual results fall short of the player’s expected scores, that player's ranking can be adjusted downward. The skill normalization module may use a simple linear adjustment proportional to the amount by which a player over performed or 35 underperformed the expected score. This type of system can be used in a variety 21 of entertainment games. Additionally, this rating can be applied when a player's performance is measured over time, rather than during play of single gaming session. The adjustment mechanism may also include a “deadband” or weighting functionality such that the player’s rating is not immediately adjusted solely as a 5 function of a single or recent performance(s), but rather considers recent results in the context of a broader set of player performance data.” (Arnone 0074)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Huke in view of Arnone to provide a means to compare a handicap and ranking to a game outcome and to thereby determine an updated ranking (i.e. new handicap) for a game event. This would be beneficial as it would enable the game establishment to accurately determine a wagering event that is not lopsided in nature and wont unnecessarily expose the game establishment to an inordinately costly payout to a user in the event the outcome is not in the favor of the game establishment.
Dependent claim(s) 13 and 19 is/are made obvious by the combination of Huke, Joos, Aissi and Arnone based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 6, which are similar in claim scope.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huke et al (US 2022/0092937) ) in view of “Understanding Spread Betting in the NFL and the Kelly Criterion” by Paul Joos, 2016 in view of Aissi (US 2014/0143149) in view of Koh et al (US 2022/0122406).
As per claim 20, Huke fails to disclose the calculation of a handicap based upon the location of where the sporting event is to be held. Huke fails to specifically disclose:
wherein adjusting the initial ratings includes adjusting the initial ratings based on a location where the sporting event is to be held.
However in a similar field of endeavor wherein user’s bet on sporting events, Koh discloses specifically the adjusting of a handicap (i.e. rating) based upon a team having a home field (i.e. location) advantage (“In this example, the user is allowed to make a handicap betting. That is to say, in a sports game that the bookmaker determines that the parties playing the sports game are not balanced (e.g., the home team typically enjoys some degree of advantage playing in its own facility), an actual score may be adjusted by a predetermined amount (known as a handicap) to create a handicapped outcome, such that the handicapped outcomes of the two parties (and therefore the odds for each party winning the handicapped outcome) may be more balanced. That is to say, the bookmaker may give a virtual advantage to a weaker one of the parties by adding the handicap to an actual score of the weaker one, and/or give a virtual disadvantage to a stronger one of the parties by subtracting the handicap from an actual score of the stronger one. (Koh 0070).)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Huke in view of Koh to utilize a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to modify a handicap based upon a team having a location advantage such as home field advantage. This would allow the bookmaker to ensure that the bets are or appear balanced in view of one team having a perceived advantage because they are playing on their home turf or field.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 - 20 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 in view of Joos and Sommer.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the claims being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Applicant has amended the claims to include the limitations of ” in response to the determined allocation of assets, causing an application or server associated with the user's asset account to modify read/write access on the application or server, which grants control to the wager engine to allocate the assets to the user's asset account” regarding Step 2A, Prong 1, makes the allegation of “Rather, at least these features are computational requirements tied to implementing the solution in an electronic environment that removes the features of claim 1 from any abstract idea, especially related to organizing human activity.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that while these features are computational in nature barring the nominal usage of servers/applications to provide access to read/write data, the abstract idea is an idea that can be carried out by a human utilizing pen and paper to grant control to allocate assets to a player account. The Examiner notes that the Applicant fails to provide any persuasive reasoning or evidence to the contrary.
Regarding Step 2A, Prong Two, the Applicant goes on to allege and argue that the newly amend claims do provide integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, more specifically that “At least this claimed functionality allows the system to provide security to the account through a modification of the read/write access, which uses the technology in meaningful way that is not generally linking a betting process to a technological environment. This is at least one practical application of the alleged abstract idea that removes claim 1 from a non-abstract computing environment under at least Step 2A Prong Two. “ The Examiner respectfully disagrees and note that these limitations amount to the linking of the abstract idea to well-known and generic technological environments or technology as is evidence by Shaked (US 2022/0269693), the use of servers to enable the accessing of data to read and/or write data to and from, is well-known and conventional. The Examiner maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
9/22/2025
/KANG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715