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 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 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 benefit redeemable exclusively at the retail establishment, and
allocate the determined benefit to the patron.
Claims 10-11 recite a 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 a mobile device executing a mobile device application, 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 sporting event wagering data corresponding to a qualifying amount of sporting event wagering activity:
determine a benefit associated with the retail establishment, and
cause the determined benefit to be exclusively provided at the retail establishment.
Claims 12-20 recite a method of operating a system, the method comprising:
responsive to a patron undertaking a 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 benefit redeemable exclusively at the retail establishment, and allocating, by the processor, the determined 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, and the mobile device are recited at a high level of generality and therefore acts as a generic computer 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 § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, 10-12, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Kline (US 2019/0362601).
Claim 1. Kline discloses a system comprising:
a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (120 in Fig. 1, paragraph 20):
responsive to a patron undertaking a designated amount of sporting event wagering activity, via a mobile device application of a mobile device (216 in Fig 2, paragraphs 7-9, 27-31), at a retail establishment (local restaurant, local grocery store, local establishment; paragraphs 26, 29, 41, 43, 56) that is independent of any gaming establishment (It is noted that the claim does not specify how the retail establishment is independent of any gaming establishment. Kline discloses the retail establishments can be local restaurants, local grocery stores, local establishments and therefore independent or separate from a gaming establishment/the arena.) and independent of any location of any sporting event (For example outside user is not located inside the arena; paragraph 29. Grocery store which is a different location from arena; paragraph 41. Local establishment that allows user to watch the game on TV or computer; paragraph 43.);
determine a benefit redeemable exclusively at the retail establishment, and allocate the determined benefit to the patron (determine and provide food, beverages, voucher; paragraphs 26, 29 41. Benefit may be exclusive such as a voucher to be used a particular store, paragraph 41.).
Claim 8. Kline discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to the patron undertaking the designated amount of sporting event wagering activity, via the mobile device application of the mobile device, at the retail establishment, cause the processor to determine a location of the patron in the retail establishment (Responsive to a user undertaking or indicating they wish to bet at step 304 in Fig. 3, the location information is determined update adds and offer at step 306 in Fig. 3, paragraphs 34, 39).
Claim 10. Kline discloses a system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that (120 in Fig. 1, paragraph 20), when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
receive, from a mobile device executing a mobile device application, sporting event wagering data (216 in Fig 2, paragraphs 7-9, 27-31) and location data (step 306 in Fig. 3, paragraph 39)., and
responsive to the location data corresponding to a retail establishment (local restaurant, local grocery store, local establishment; paragraphs 26, 29, 41, 43, 56) that is independent of any gaming establishment (It is noted that the claim does not specify how the retail establishment is independent of any gaming establishment. Kline discloses the retail establishments can be local restaurants, local grocery stores, local establishments and therefore independent or separate from a gaming establishment/the arena.) and independent of any location of any sporting event (For example outside user is not located inside the arena; paragraph 29. Grocery store which is a different location from arena; paragraph 41. Local establishment that allows user to watch the game on TV or computer; paragraph 43.) and the sporting event wagering data corresponding to a qualifying amount of sporting event wagering activity (216 in Fig 2, paragraphs 7-9, 27-31):
determine a benefit associated with the retail establishment; cause the determined benefit to be exclusively provided at the retail establishment (determine and provide food, beverages, voucher; paragraphs 26, 29 41. Benefit may be exclusive such as a voucher to be used a particular store, paragraph 41.).
Claim 11. Kline discloses the system of claim 10, wherein causing the determined benefit to be exclusively provided at the retail establishment automatically occurs independent of any input received by the mobile device (The application is updated to provide benefit/promotion based on the mobile device associated the user detecting the location of the user; paragraph 39. Therefore, it is interpreted that the benefit is provided automatically and independently of any input since it occurs based on the detected location.).
Claims 12, 19. See rejections for claims 1, 8 above.
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.
Claims 7, 9, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kline (US 2019/0362601).
Claims 7, 18. Kline discloses the claimed invention as discussed above but fails to teach that the determined benefit comprises access to an event associated with the retail establishment. Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. Kline discloses that the benefit can be food, beverages, seats, at a sporting event, upgraded seats, or any other object, merchandise or benefit that may be provided to the user at the sporting venues or any affiliated restaurant pub or any other locations (paragraphs 26). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kline’s invention provide access to an event associated with the retail establishment since Kline teaches access to an event (sporting event) and that any other object, merchandise or benefit that may be provided to the user at the affiliated restaurant pub or any other locations.
Claims 9, 20. Kline discloses the claimed system as discussed above but fails to teach that at least a portion of a cost of the determined benefit is chargeable to an account associated with the retail establishment. Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. There’s only a finite number of ways in which the benefit is charged to. The benefit can be charged to an account associated with the retail establishment, user, sporting event, a third party. It would have been obvious to try to choose an account associated with the retail establishment, or from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. In addition, tracking the benefit with an account associated with the retail establishment will allow the retail establishment to keep track of the benefits provided to users. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective to filing date to modify Kline’s invention and charge the benefit to an account associated with the retail establishment since there is only a finite number of ways in which the benefit is charged to and in order to allow the retail establishment to keep track of the benefits provided to users.
Claims 2-3, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kline (US 2019/0362601) as applied to claims 1, 12 above, and further in view of Chen (US 2007/0088610).
Claim 2. Kline discloses the claimed invention as discussed above but fails to teach associating the benefit with a retail establishment loyalty account maintained independent of any gaming establishment account and independent of any other retail establishments. Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. There are many retail loyalty programs that are exclusive for that particular retail. Chen discloses that discloses that specific grocery stores would have their own loyalty program (paragraph 7). This allows the retail store to manage their own loyalty program. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Kline’s invention and associate the benefit with a retail establishment loyalty account maintained independent of any gaming establishment account and independent of any other retail establishments in order to provide the predictable result of allowing the retail store to manage their own loyalty program.
Claim 3. Kline in view of Chen discloses the system of claim 2, wherein associating the determined benefit with the retail establishment loyalty account comprises crediting the retail establishment loyalty account with a quantity of loyalty points redeemable for a plurality of different goods at the retail establishment (i.e. credit/discount for specific items, paragraph 7).
Claims 13-14. See rejection for claims 2-3 above.
Claims 4-5, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kline (US 2019/0362601) as applied to claims 1, 12 above, and further in view of Dhillon (US 2012/0244948)
Claim 4. Kline discloses the claimed invention as discussed above but fails to teach communicating data to the mobile device that results in the mobile device application displaying a machine-readable code associated with the determined benefit. Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. In an analogous art to providing benefits to a patron, Dhillon discloses rewards or bonus provided to a user to be used at a store (paragraph 67). Dhillon discloses that a machine readable code (bar code, paragraph 67) is transmitted to a computing device such as a mobile device to be used in the store (paragraph 67). This allows the user to redeem the benefit using the mobile device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Kline’s invention and communicate data to the mobile device that results in the mobile device application displaying a machine-readable code associated with the determined benefit in order to provide the predictable result of redeeming the benefit using the mobile device.
Claim 5. Kline discloses the system of claim 1 but fails to teach communicating data to a component of a point-of-sale system that results in causing an order to be placed. Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. In an analogous art to providing benefits to a patron, Dhillon discloses rewards or bonus provided to a user to be used at a store (paragraph 67). Dhillon discloses that the reward can be claimed at a point of sale in an online or traditional store (paragraph 67). This allows the user to redeem the rewards for goods at a traditional point of sale terminal or online. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Kline’s invention and communicate data to a component of a point-of-sale system that results in causing an order to be placed in order to provide the predictable result of allowing the user to redeem the benefit at a point of sale system.
Claims 15-16. See rejections for claims 4-5 above.
Claims 6, 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kline (US 2019/0362601) as applied to claims 1, 12 above, and further in view of Kelly (US 5,816,918).
Claims 6, 17. Kline discloses the claimed invention as discussed above but fails to teach that the determined benefit is associated with at least one of a value of a product selectable by the patron and a tier of the product selectable by the patron. Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. It is known in the art to allow users select a benefit or prize. In an analogous art to providing benefits or rewards, Kelly discloses a redemption system in which a patron can select a product from a plurality of prizes in which the prizes are arranged in a tier (prize value; Figs. 6b-6c, col. 3:22-29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Kline’s invention and incorporate a product selectable by the patron and a tier of the product selectable by the patron in order to provide the predictable result of allowing the patron select a prize to their liking.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant argues that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant argues that the claims reduces the number of steps needed to complete a purchase transaction at a retail establishment by applying benefits (.e.g., comps or discounts) obtained from sporting event wagering activity occurred at the retail establishment, bypassing additional forms of payment to complete the purchase transaction. Applicant argues that the claimed invention improve efficiency by reducing in certain instance, the amount of steps needed to complete a transaction at an affiliated property where such sporting event wagering activity occurs by removing the process associated with additional forms of payments. However, the use of applying benefits such as comps or discounts at a retail establishment for purchase or financial transaction such as a wagering activity is an abstract idea. In addition, applying a discount at a retail establishment would require payment of the remaining amount. Applying a discount or comp requires the additional step of verifying or at least receiving the processing the discount or comp. In addition, it is common for retail establishments to process discounts or comp such as vouchers and coupons. There no significant number of steps reduced. The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Prior Art
Applicant argues that Kline fails to teach a retail establishment that is independent of any location of any sporting activity. In other words, Kline fails to teach that the retail location is a separate location from the sporting activity. However, Kline teaches that the location of the retail establishment is at location that independent of the location of the sporting event. For example, Kline discloses that the user is located outside the arena and not inside the arena (paragraph 29). Kline discloses that the location can be a grocery store which is a different location from the arena (paragraph 41). Kline discloses that the user can be at a local establishment which allows the user to watch the game on TV or computer (paragraph 43).
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 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