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 § 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 recite an abstract idea of organizing of human activity. The claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application and 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 drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
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.
Claims 1-9 recite a sporting event wagering patron management system comprising:
a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
responsive to a patron undertaking a designated amount of sporting event wagering activity, via a sporting event wagering terminal of a gaming establishment, communicate data associated with the amount of sporting event activity to a gaming establishment patron management system which determines, at least partially based on the data, a first benefit non-exclusively redeemable at any retail establishment independent of the gaming establishment; and
responsive to the patron undertaking the designated amount of sporting event wagering activity, via a mobile device application of a mobile device, at a retail establishment that is independent of any gaming establishment and independent of any sporting event:
determine a second benefit redeemable exclusively at the retail establishment, and
allocate the determined second benefit to the patron.
Claims 10-11 recite a sporting event wagering patron management system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
receive, from sporting event wagering terminal of a gaming establishment, first sporting event wagering data,
communicate the first sporting event wagering data to a gaming establishment patron management patron management system which determines, at least partially based on the first sporting event wagering data corresponding to qualifying amount of sporting event wagering activity, a first benefit non-exclusively redeemable at any retail establishment independent of the gaming establishment.
receive, from a mobile device executing a mobile device application, second sporting event wagering data and location data, and
responsive to the location data corresponding to a retail establishment that is independent of any gaming establishment and independent of any location of any sporting event and the second sporting event wagering data corresponding to the qualifying amount of sporting event wagering activity:
determine a second benefit associated with the retail establishment, and
cause the determined second benefit to be exclusively provided at the retail establishment.
Claims 12-20 recite a method of operating a sporting event wagering patron management system, the method comprising:
responsive to a patron undertaking a designated amount of sporting event wagering activity, via a sporting event wagering terminal of a gaming establishment, communicating data associated with the amount of sporting event wagering activity to a gaming establishment patron management system which determines, at least partially based on the data, a first benefit non-exclusively redeemable at any retail establishment independent of the gaming establishment, and
responsive to the patron undertaking the designated amount of sporting event wagering activity, via a mobile device application of a mobile device, at a retail establishment that is independent of any gaming establishment and independent of any location of any sporting event:
determining, by a processor, a second benefit redeemable exclusively at the retail establishment, and allocating, by the processor, the determined second benefit to the patron.
The underlined limitations recite an abstract idea of organizing human activity. The claims recite steps of providing a benefit at a retail establishment for placing a wager at a retail establishment. Providing a benefit based on a transaction (placing a wager) is fundamental economic principle or a commercial interaction. Organization of human activity includes fundamental economic principles or practices and commercial or legal interactions.
Step 2a2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration of whether the claim recites additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application.
An additional element or combination of additional elements that are indicative of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application include:
-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
Additional element or combination of additional elements that are not indicative of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application include:
-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 claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way.
The additional elements of: receiving from a mobile device sporting event wagering data and location data amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The system comprising a processor and memory, wagering terminal and the mobile device are recited at a high level of generality and therefore acts as a generic computers to perform the abstract idea.
For the reasons discussed above, the additional elements identified above considered alone and in combination fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception.
Claims 1-20 recite a mobile device to designate an amount of sporting event wagering activity. Cornett (US 8,814,668) discloses that using a mobile device to place a wager on sporting events is known in the art (col. 3:34-46).
Claims 8, 10-11 19, recite determining a location of a patron or receiving location data from a mobile device. Proco (US 2011/0269436) discloses that determining location data of a mobile device is known on the art (paragraphs 47, 74).
The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent further recite an abstract idea of organizing human activity. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified abstract idea. Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The dependent clams merely include limitations that further define the abstract idea and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract. The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites, responsive to a patron undertaking a designated amount of sporting event wagering activity, via a sporting event wagering terminal of a gaming establishment, communicate data associated with the amount of sporting event activity to a gaming establishment patron management system which determines, at least partially based on the data, a first benefit non-exclusively redeemable at any retail establishment independent of the gaming establishment.
Applicant’s specification fails to teach a patron undertaking a designated amount of sporting event wagering activity, via a sporting event wagering terminal of a gaming establishment, communicate data associated with the amount of sporting event activity to a gaming establishment patron management system. There is no description of communicate data associated with the amount of sporting event activity to a gaming establishment patron management system. There is no description of a gaming establishment patron management system. Applicant’s specification fails to teach a gaming establishment patron management system determines, at least partially based on the data, a first benefit non-exclusively redeemable at any retail establishment independent of the gaming establishment. In addition, there is no description of a non-exclusive first benefit that is redeemable at a retail establishment independent of the gaming establishment.
Claims 2-9 are rejected by dependency. Claims 10-20 incorporate similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claim 1 recites, responsive to the patron undertaking the designated amount of sporting event wagering activity, via a mobile device application of a mobile device, at a retail establishment that is independent of any gaming establishment and independent of any sporting event: determine a second benefit redeemable.
Applicant specification fails to teach that the patron undertakes the designated amount of sporting event wagering activity (the amount via a sporting event wagering terminal of a gaming establishment), via a mobile device application of a mobile device and determine a second benefit.
Claims 2-9 are rejected by dependency. Claims 10-20 incorporate similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claim 1 recites: a sporting event wagering patron management system comprising:
a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
responsive to a patron undertaking a designated amount of sporting event wagering activity, via a sporting event wagering terminal of a gaming establishment, communicate data associated with the amount of sporting event activity to a gaming establishment patron management system which determines, at least partially based on the data, a first benefit non-exclusively redeemable at any retail establishment independent of the gaming establishment; and
responsive to the patron undertaking the designated amount of sporting event wagering activity, via a mobile device application of a mobile device, at a retail establishment that is independent of any gaming establishment and independent of any sporting event:
determine a second benefit redeemable exclusively at the retail establishment, and
allocate the determined second benefit to the patron.
The underlined limitations are conditions for the processor to perform the determination and allocation steps. Applicant’s specification fail to teach that the underlined claim limitations occur for the processor to perform the determination and allocation steps.
Claims 2-9 are rejected by dependency. Claims 12-20 incorporate similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasons as discussed above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites: cause the processor to:
responsive to a patron undertaking a designated amount of sporting event wagering activity, via a sporting event wagering terminal of a gaming establishment, communicate data associated with the amount of sporting event activity to a gaming establishment patron management system which determines, at least partially based on the data, a first benefit non-exclusively redeemable at any retail establishment independent of the gaming establishment.
The claim is indefinite because it is not clear if the step of determining at least partially based on the data, a first benefit non-exclusively redeemable at any retail establishment independent of the gaming establishment is required. The claims recites a processor that is programed to determine a second benefit and allocated the determined second benefit. However, it is not clear if the determination of a second benefit and allocation of the determined second benefit is based on determined first benefit since the first benefit is determined by the patron management system.
The claim is also indefinite because the claim recite both a system and steps of operating the system. The claim recites, responsive to a patron undertaking a designated amount of sporting event wagering activity, via a sporting event wagering terminal of a gaming establishment, communicate data associated with the amount of sporting event activity to a gaming establishment patron management system which determines, at least partially based on the data, a first benefit non-exclusively redeemable at any retail establishment independent of the gaming establishment and responsive to the patron undertaking the designated amount of sporting event wagering activity, via a mobile device application of a mobile device, at a retail establishment that is independent of any gaming establishment and independent of any sporting event. The claim is indefinite because it is not clear when one creates a system that determines and allocates the second benefit or when a patron undertakes a second designated amount of sporting event wagering activity, via sporting event wagering terminal and via a mobile device.
Claims 2-9 are rejected by dependency. Claims 10-11incorporate similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claim 12 recites, responsive to a patron undertaking a designated amount of sporting event wagering activity, via a sporting event wagering terminal of a gaming establishment, communicating data associated with the amount of sporting event wagering activity to a gaming establishment patron management system which determines, at least partially based on the data, a first benefit non-exclusively redeemable at any retail establishment independent of the gaming establishment. The claim is indefinite because it is not clear if the underlined limitations are required for the claimed method. More specifically, the underlined limitation recite steps performed by the sporting event wagering terminal and the gaming establishment patron management system. However, the claim recites a method of operating a sporting event wagering patron management system. It is not clear if the sporting event wagering terminal and the gaming establishment patron management system are part of the sporting event wagering patron management system and steps performed by the sporting event wagering terminal and the gaming establishment patron management system are considered steps performed by the sporting event wagering patron management system.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant argues that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant argues the claims recite a specific technological improvement over prior systems by integrating data from a sporting event wagering terminal at a gaming establishment with data from a mobile device at a retail establishment remote from the gaming establishment. In doing so, the claimed sporting event wagering patron management system solves a technical problem of coordinating benefits across disparate, separately-managed computing environments that would otherwise require separate, uncoordinated manual processes across the two environments. More specifically, the claimed sporting event wagering patron management system operates with and routes data between (i) a sporting event wagering terminal, (ii) a gaming establishment patron management system, and (iii) a mobile device application operating at a retail establishment to coordinate these distinct devices to determine and deliver two different types of benefits based on the same sporting event wagering activity occurring at different locations. This integration of distinct systems represents a non- conventional arrangement of computing components that yields a specific technical improvement of enabling real-time coordination between gaming establishment systems and retail establishment systems to deliver location-specific benefits.
However, the sporting event wagering terminal, gaming establishment patron management system, and mobile device are recited at a high level of generality and therefore acts as a generic computers to perform the abstract idea. 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 claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way.
Applicant also argues that the ordered combination of elements of: receiving wagering activity data from a sporting event wagering terminal of a gaming establishment, communicating that data to a gaming establishment patron management system, receiving from that system a determination of a first benefit non-exclusively redeemable at any retail establishment, and separately determining a second benefit redeemable exclusively at a retail establishment based on mobile device wagering at that retail establishment; is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. As described in the present specification, prior systems were limited to offering gaming establishment benefits that required the player to travel to the gaming establishment to collect the benefit such that the claimed sporting event wagering patron management system's particular configuration of routing wagering data through multiple systems to enable location-differentiated benefit determination represents a non-conventional arrangement of components that is not merely the application of generic computer components. In other words, the claimed sporting event wagering patron management system performs specific technical functions, real-time cross-system data routing, automated benefit determination across separately managed environments, and point-of-sale integration, that go beyond merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computer hardware.
However, offering benefits is not a technical improvement on a computer. Other than offering a benefit, Applicant has no explained how the hardware is non-conventional arrangement of components. Using generic computers and generical gaming terminal to implement the abstract idea (provide benefits) is not a technical improvement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jasson H Yoo whose telephone number is (571)272-5563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/JASSON H YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights