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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17 recite making various calculations using various graphics. The calculations are not made using the graphics. They are made using values that are displayed in the graphics. Thus, the adjusted wager odds are not calculated using the odds adjusted graphics as claimed. Instead, they are calculated using an adds adjusted value that is displayed in the odds adjusted graphics. This is not the only part of the claims that recite using graphics to perform calculations. Applicant should review the claims and make appropriate changes.
Regarding claims 4, 10, and 20 recite that the adjustments to the odds are calculated by the random number generator. It appears that the adjustments are calculated using random numbers provided by the random number generator. The random number generator does not (and cannot) itself calculate the claimed adjustments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea of organizing human activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
More specifically, regarding Step 1, of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a method and system, which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2a1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
The claims recite a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recite a gaming device comprising:
a display device;
a touch screen input;
a processor connected to the display device and the touch screen input; and
a memory coupled to the processor, the memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
receive, from a data storage device, wager data corresponding to a plurality of events, betting lines, and wagers;
generate a graphical user interface (GUI) on the display device that receives an input that corresponds to a wager, wherein the input comprises a first wager input and a second wager input corresponding to the wager data;
receive, via the GUI, the first wager input that selects a wager team, a wager line, and a wager odds from the wager data;
after receiving the first wager input, receive, via the GUI, the second wager input that selects a wagering amount;
after receiving the second wager input, receive, via the GUI, an odds booster input that corresponds to an odds booster game for the wager team, the wager line, the wager odds, and the wagering amount, wherein the odds booster game changes the wager line and the wager odds, wherein the odds booster game includes a machine learning algorithm executing within the processor that includes one or more of a line adjustment graphic and an odds adjustment graphic;
generate the line adjustment graphic on the GUI, via the machine learning algorithm executing within the processor;
calculate and adjust, via the machine learning algorithm executing within the processor, an adjusted wager line using the line adjustment graphic;
generate the odds adjustment graphic on the GUI, via the machine learning algorithm executing within the processor;
calculate and adjust, via the machine learning algorithm executing within the processor, an adjusted wager odds using the odds adjustment graphic;
display, via the GUI, final wager data that includes the wager team, the adjusted wager line, the adjusted wager odds, and the wagering amount; and
send, via a communication interface and to the data storage device, the final wager data corresponding to the wager team, the adjusted wager line, the adjusted wager odds, and the wagering amount.
Claim 9 recites the steps of a method for a casino/sports-betting gaming system with an odds booster game, the method comprising:
receiving, from a data storage device, wager data corresponding to a plurality of events, betting lines, and wagers;
generating a graphical user interface (GUI) on a display device that receives an input that corresponds to a wager, wherein the input comprises a first wager input and a second wager input corresponding to the wager data;
receiving, via the GUI, the first wager input that selects a wager team, a wager line, and a wager odds from the wager data;
after receiving the first wager input, receiving, via the GUI, the second wager input that selects a wagering amount;
after receiving the second wager input, receiving, via the GUI, an odds booster input that corresponds to an odds booster game for the wager team, the wager line, the wager odds, and the wagering amount, wherein the odds booster game changes the wager line and the wager odds, wherein the odds booster game includes a machine learning algorithm executing within a processor that includes one or more of a line adjustment graphic and an odds adjustment graphic;
generating the line adjustment graphic on the GUI, via the machine learning algorithm executing within the processor;
calculating and adjusting, via the machine learning algorithm executing within the processor, an adjusted wager line using the line adjustment graphic;
generating the odds adjustment graphic on the GUI, via the machine learning algorithm executing within the processor;
calculating and adjusting, via the machine learning algorithm executing within the processor, an adjusted wager odds using the odds adjustment graphic;
displaying, via the GUI, final wager data that includes the wager team, the adjusted wager line, the adjusted wager odds, and the wagering amount; and
sending, via a communication interface and to the data storage device, the final wager data corresponding to the wager team, the adjusted wager line, the adjusted wager odds, and the wagering amount.
Claim 17 recites a system for an odds booster game comprising:
a processor; and
a memory coupled to the processor, the memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
receive, from a data storage device, wager data corresponding to a plurality of events, betting lines, and wagers;
generate a graphical user interface (GUI) on a display device that receives an input that corresponds to a wager, wherein the input comprises a first wager input and a second wager input corresponding to the wager data;
receive, via the GUI, the first wager input that selects a wager team, a wager line, and a wager odds from the wager data;
after receiving the first wager input, receive, via the GUI, the second wager input that selects a wagering amount;
after receiving the second wager input, receive, via the GUI, an odds booster input that corresponds to an odds booster game for the wager team, the wager line, the wager odds, and the wagering amount, wherein the odds booster game changes the wager line and the wager odds, wherein the odds booster game includes a machine learning algorithm executing within the processor that includes one or more of a line adjustment graphic and an odds adjustment graphic;
generate, calculate, and adjust, via the machine learning algorithm executing within the processor, an adjusted wager line using a line adjustment graphic;
generate, calculate, and adjust, via the machine learning algorithm executing within the processor, an adjusted wager odds using an odds adjustment graphic;
display, via the GUI, final wager data that includes the wager team, the adjusted wager line, the adjusted wager odds, and the wagering amount; and send, via a communication interface and to the data storage device, the final wager data corresponding to the wager team, the adjusted wager line, the adjusted wager odds, and the wagering amount.
The claim limitations (as underlined above) are steps of organizing human activity. The claims recites a method of playing a game. The game is a gambling game. Gambling inherently is a method of determining financial obligations. And it is a method of forming contracts. For these reasons, the claims are drawn to a method of organizing human activities. Additionally, the claimed method can be performed by a human using a writing utensil and substrate (i.e., chalk and a chalkboard). To the extent Applicant chooses to argue that no wagering actually takes place, Applicant’s claims are drawn to printed matter – which has also been determined to be ineligible under §101. Thus, Applicant’s claims are drawn to an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
(a) It does not improve the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field;
(b) Applying the judicial exception does not effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
(c) Do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine;
(d) It does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing;
(e) It does not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the exception to a particular technological environment such that the claims as a whole are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as shown in Applicant’s specification, the method is implemented on generic computers and a generic network:
[0032] Embodiments disclosed herein may be performed using a gaming device to perform sports betting. As used herein, a gaming device may include mobile devices, personal computers, kiosks and/or sports betting terminals, among others. The in-play sports bet is a real time bet in which the user predicts the actions of the team or team member or the result of the team in the near future such as the next down, next service, next possession and/or next turn. The user can wager real money, virtual money and/or points.
[00100] Computer program code for carrying out operations for aspects of the present disclosure may be written in any combination of one or more programming languages, including an object oriented programming language such as Java, Scala, Smalltalk, Eiffel, JADE, Emerald, C++, C #, VB.NET, Python or the like, conventional procedural programming languages, such as the "C" programming language, Visual Basic, Fortran 2003, Perl, COBOL 2002, PHP, ABAP, dynamic programming languages such as Python, Ruby and Groovy, or other programming languages. The program code may execute entirely on the user's computer, partly on the user's computer, as a stand-alone software package, partly on the user's computer and partly on a remote computer or entirely on the remote computer or server. In the latter scenario, the remote computer may be connected to the user's computer through any type of network, including a local area network (LAN) or a wide area network (WAN), or the connection may be made to an external computer (for example, through the Internet using an Internet Service Provider) or in a cloud computing environment or offered as a service such as a Software as a Service (SaaS).
As Applicant is no doubt aware, in order to be patent-eligible, a software invention’s claims must be drawn to a technical solution to a technical problem. A technical problem is a problem arising out of technology. Applicant’s invention does not address any technical problem. Therefore, Applicant’s invention is not eligible under §101.
Applicant may argue that the claims recite a Graphical User Interface. But Applicant has not invented a new GUI technology. Applicant is using existing technology to display a GUI. This does not render claims patent-eligible.
Since the Alice decision, implementation of an abstract idea on generic computers is not patent-eligible without “significantly more.” Neither the abstract idea itself nor parts of the abstract idea can supply “significantly more” than the abstract idea. As written, current claims are drawn to an abstract idea with essentially the words “implement it” on a generic computer appended thereto. As such, the claims are not patent-eligible.
A thorough analysis or each and every limitation of each and every claim, both individually and as a part of an ordered combination shows that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, organizing human activity includes managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The interaction encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of a messaging application that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping.
The claim limitations (as underlined) recite that a gaming application is initiated and a communication interface with a player is received. The steps of playing a wagering game and managing a wagering game is step of a fundamental economic principle or practice and also step of managing social activities. The abstract idea of organizing human activity includes managing interaction between people including social activities. Therefore, the claim recite an abstract idea of organizing human activity.
Step 2a2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1-20 do not apply a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing.
Claims 1-20 are not directed to an improvement to a function of a computer. There is no improvement to a technical field. In addition, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
The claim recite one or more processors to perform the abstract idea of managing a game. As indicated in Applicant’s specification, the user device is a general purpose computer. Although not positively claimed as part of the claimed system, the claim indicates that that system is connected to a server, and databases. The server, database, are also used to implement the abstract idea in a computer embodiment. The use of a computer generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception.
The claims recites additional limitation of a computer system. These limitations are not positively claimed to be part of the claimed system. Assuming that they were part of the claims system, these limitations in combination with the user terminal is used to transmit and storing (retrieving and providing steps, identify and display information (event information, location, selection options, prizes).
The courts have ruled that storing data in a database and retrieving data from a database is well-known conventional and routine functions of a computer as indicated below.
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log).
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
The steps of identifying events, identifying and displaying available outcomes, providing selection options, are steps of presenting offers. The courts have ruled that a computer to present offers is well-known, routine and convention, or insignificant extra solution activity.
Determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gonzalez et al (US 2023/0290223).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17: Gonzalez et al discloses a gaming device comprising: a display device; a touch screen input; a processor connected to the display device and the touch screen input (see figure 1; paragraph [0003], showing placing a bet on an upcoming or live sporting event with a few taps on the touchscreens); and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receive, from a data storage device, wager data corresponding to a plurality of events, betting lines, and wagers (see figure 2A); generate a graphical user interface (GUI) on the display device that receives an input that corresponds to a wager, wherein the input comprises a first wager input and a second wager input corresponding to the wager data; receive, via the GUI, the first wager input that selects a wager team, a wager line, and a wager odds from the wager data (see paragraphs [0090]-[0092], showing placing bets on outcome associated with the symbols 308 associated with the awarded multiplier 302 can be arranged in one row or one horizontal line (also known as a payline) visible to the user); after receiving the first wager input, receive, via the GUI, the second wager input that selects a wagering amount (see paragraph [0065], showing the user can also input a bet amount 116 or adjust the bet amount 116 by applying one or more user inputs to a set of increment and decrement buttons); after receiving the second wager input, receive, via the GUI, an odds booster input that corresponds to an odds booster game for the wager team, the wager line, the wager odds, and the wagering amount, wherein the odds booster game changes the wager line and the wager odds, wherein the odds booster game includes a machine learning algorithm executing within the processor that includes one or more of a line adjustment graphic and an odds adjustment graphic (see figures 2A,3,4A,4B, paragraphs [0069], showing secondary odds and multipliers); generate the line adjustment graphic on the GUI, via the machine learning algorithm executing within the processor (see figure 4A, showing calculating new wager line via the random number generator within the processor and wherein new payout available for the adjusted wager line); calculate and adjust, via the machine learning algorithm executing within the processor, an adjusted wager line using the line adjustment graphic (see figure 4A, showing calculating new wager line via the random number generator within the processor and wherein new payout available for the adjusted wager line); generate the odds adjustment graphic on the GUI, via the machine learning algorithm executing within the processor (see figure 4A, showing calculating new wager line via the random number generator within the processor and wherein new payout available for the adjusted wager line; calculate and adjust, via the machine learning algorithm executing within the processor, an adjusted wager odds using the odds adjustment graphic (see figure 4A, showing the new payout odds for the wager line); display, via the GUI, final wager data that includes the wager team, the adjusted wager line, the adjusted wager odds, and the wagering amount (see figures 2A, 4A, showing displaying adjusted wager line); and send, via a communication interface and to the data storage device, the final wager data corresponding to the wager team, the adjusted wager line, the adjusted wager odds, and the wagering amount (see paragraphs [0034], [0070], showing communication interface such as WAN, Bluetooth, etc for confirming the bet 112 (for example, by applying a user input to an “OK” button), the server 102 can receive the request from the client device 106 to place the bet 112 along with the bet amount 116 and the odds 114 associated with the sporting event 202).
Regarding claims 2 and 10: Gonzalez et al discloses wherein the line adjustment graphic includes a line differential wheel that includes a plurality of line adjustments as calculated by the machine learning algorithm executing within the processor (see figure 3, paragraph [0087], showing the slot machine graphic 300 can comprise a plurality of reels 306).
Regarding claims 3, 5, 11, 13, and 20: Gonzalez et al discloses wherein the plurality of line adjustments includes one or more positive line adjustments and one or more negative line adjustments (see paragraphs [0047], showing how the selected level of profit margin may be maintained by the operator adjusting the line adjustments and the odds for the line adjustments in the booster game. (See pages 6 & 7.) Including negative line adjustments would allow the operator to include larger positive line adjustments and teaches positive line adjustments in Table 1).
Regarding claims 4 and 12: Gonzalez et al discloses wherein the odds adjustment graphic includes a odds wheel that includes a plurality of odds adjustments as calculated by the machine learning algorithm executing within the processor (see figure 3, paragraph [0087], showing the slot machine graphic 300 can comprise a plurality of reels 306).
Regarding claims 6 and 14: Gonzalez et al discloses wherein the wager data comprises a home/away indication and event time/date information (see figure 2A, showing various indications and event information on the display).
Regarding claims 7, 15, and 18: Gonzalez et al discloses wherein the display device, the touch screen input, and the processor are included within a mobile device (see figure 1, showing multiples devices 106, which includes a mobile device).
Regarding claims 8, 16, and 19: Gonzalez et al discloses further including a gaming terminal with a housing that encloses the display device, the touch screen input, and the processor (see figure 1, showing gaming devices such as a tablet, mobile device, with display device, touch screen and processor).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Huke et al discloses artificial intelligence and machine learning enhanced betting odds method, system, and apparatus; Huke et al discloses sensor data improving wagering odds; Froy et al discloses electronic gaming machines with dynamic auto play mode methods enabled by AI-Based playstyle models.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADETOKUNBO OLUSEGUN TORIMIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-1345. 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, Peter Vasat can be reached at (571)270-7625. 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.
/ADETOKUNBO O TORIMIRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715