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 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 – 20 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.
Independent claims 1 comprise the limitations “a front-end server having a front-end processor executing second non-transient computer instructions which instantiate a Counter Tilting Engine (“CTE”) which performs CTE operations that include: aligning the first SGP pricing with a single bet pricing, for a single bet line for the first activity for the event; and wherein the front-end server outputs to the SGP application, for presentation to the user, an adjusted first SGP betting line that is aligned with a current single bet pricing for the first activity for the event.”
Independent claims 13 comprise the limitations “determining if the initial single bet pricing and the initial SGP pricing are aligned; when aligned, using the initial SGP pricing for the first SGP betting line; and when not aligned, adjusting the initial set of counters to provide an adjusted set of counters; and iteratively generating, based on the adjusted set of counters, one or more instances of an adjusted first SGP pricing until the adjusted first SGP pricing aligns with a current single bet pricing for the single bet line.”
Independent claims 17 comprise the limitations “determining if the initial single bet pricing and the initial SGP pricing are aligned; when aligned, using the initial SGP pricing for the first SGP betting line; and when not aligned, adjusting the initial set of counters to provide an adjusted set of counters; and iteratively generating, based on the adjusted set of counters, one or more instances of an adjusted first SGP pricing until the adjusted first SGP pricing aligns with a current single bet pricing for the single bet line.”
The Examiner notes that the dependent claims 2 – 12, 14 – 16 and 18 -20 comprise similar language comprising limitations of “aligning”, aligned or aligns in some form explicitly claimed or by virtue of dependency. The Examiner has reviewed the claims and the specification at length regarding the meaning of the term(s) “align(s), aligned and/or aligning”. The Examiner notes that term is subjective and nature and can have a plurality of possible meanings based on the context of the claims. For instance, when determining if a SGP pricing is aligned with single bet pricing, it could mean the prices are equal. It could mean the prices are close to one another, it could mean the prices are not close to one another. It could mean that they are within a set threshold of one another. It could mean that one price is correct and one price is wrong etc. It could mean that the prices are have some sort of correlation with one another, etc. The Examiner notes that the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be determined due to the lack of specificity in the specification and the claims as to how the term should be interpreted.
The Examiner then looks to the specification to gain insight to how the term is used and how the claims should be interpreted. The Examiner notes that in paragraph 0108, the specification appears to attempt to define the term “aligned” (paragraph quoted below). However, even when defining the term in the context of the specification, the definition fails to clearly define what is meant by the term “aligned”. In one embodiment the Applicant defines the term to specifically mean the pricing “does not vary and is identical” then the Applicant goes on to state that in other embodiments the term means the pricing may vary by a variance, thus contradicting the first stated definition that the term means the pricing is identical and specifically does not vary. The Applicant is more than welcome to be their own lexicographer and provide application specific terminology in the context of the claimed invention and define those terms with specific meanings or definitions, but in doing so the Applicant has clearly defined the term to be at odds with their own defined meaning of the term. Thus for this reason the claimed scope cannot be determined as the metes and bounds of such a crucial feature of the claims (Independent claims 1, 13 and 17 and depending claims) that all rely on the claimed feature of “align(s), aligned and/or aligning” are not clearly defined. Clarification is needed.
[0108] As per Operation 308, the process may include determining if pricing for the single bet line and a first SGP betting line are aligned. As used herein, “aligned” means that the pricing does not vary and is identical. For other implementations, the pricing may vary by a pre-determined variance. For example, a pre-determined variance may be used with volatile betting lines and with the amount of variance increasing/decreasing based on a volatility of a given betting line. For example, a betting line that is changing on a repeated basis, such as once every ten seconds, may have some variance than one that is constant or changes on an infrequent basis, such as once an hour, where no variance may be used. If “YES,” the process may proceed to Operation 310 with the SGP pricing being utilized for the given bet selection. If “NO,” the process may proceed to Operation 312.
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:
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 1 - 12 are exemplary because they require substantially the same operative limitations of the remaining claims (reproduced below.) Examiner has underlined the claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, discussed in detail in the paragraphs that follow.
1. An aligned single game parlay system comprising:
a user device having a processor executing first non-transient computer instructions which instantiate a single game parlay (“SGP”) application;
wherein the SGP application provides a SGP application user interface which facilitates selection, by a user of the user device, of an SGP bet including a first SGP betting line and a second SGP betting line for an event;
wherein the first SGP betting line specifies a first SGP pricing for a first activity for the event;
wherein the second SGP betting line specifies a second SGP pricing for a second activity for the event; and
a front-end server having a front-end processor executing second non-transient computer instructions which instantiate a Counter Tilting Engine (“CTE”) which performs CTE operations that include:
aligning the first SGP pricing with a single bet pricing, for a single bet line for the first activity for the event; and
wherein the front-end server outputs to the SGP application, for presentation to the user, an adjusted first SGP betting line that is aligned with a current single bet pricing for the first activity for the event.
The claims recite italicized limitations that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, namely, Mental processes and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
More specifically, under this grouping, the italicized limitations represent fundamental economic principles or practices, and concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). For example, the italicized limitations are directed towards the process of setting a price for single game parlay betting lines “aligning” single game parlay prices to the price of a single price for a game activity. This represents a fundamental economic practice, namely, setting the price of betting lines and presenting them to a user mental processes.
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): user devices, servers (“front-end”, “back-end” and processors.
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 computer user devices, servers (“front-end”, “back-end” and processors. 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, Applicants own specification establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0042] “Additional I/O interface” (AIOI) herein refers to one or more components, provided with or coupled to a device, configured to support a receiving and/or presenting of additional inputs and outputs to and from one or more users. An AIOI may be configured to support the receiving and presenting of the additional I/O content (AIO) to users. Herein, the AIO, as communicated, may be referred to as “AIO signals.” An AIO signal may include an audible signal or a visible signal and may be communicated separately or collectively therewith. An AIOI may include any interface not otherwise categorized as an Audio I/O interface or a Visual I/O interface with non-limiting examples including touch pads, keyboards, sensors, motion detectors, tactile elements, and the like. Any known or later arising technologies configured to convey information to or from one or more users as an AIO signal may be utilized for at least one implementation of the present disclosure. An AIOI includes hardware and computer instructions (herein, “AIOtechnologies”) which supports the input and output of other signals with a user.
[0045] “Back-end system” (BES) herein refers to one or more computer servers, data storage devices, applications, and the like which, singularly and/or cooperatively, address one or more back-end on-line gaming functions. As used herein, a “back-end online gaming function”(BEOGF) is one or more data processing operations and communications operations performed by one or more servers which facilitate the providing of Props, results of in-game activities, and event results. A BES may include one or more servers, data stores, communications interfaces, user interfaces, security, power, busses, and related components. The BES components may be physically, logically, virtually or otherwise grouped and/or coupled to facilitate the one or more back-end on-line gaming functions including, but not limited to, those identified herein.
[0054] “Front-End System” (FES) herein refers to one or more user devices, servers, data storage, communications interfaces, and related components which, singularly and/or cooperatively, address one or more gaming on-line gaming functions. As used herein, a “Front-End Online gaming function” (FEOGF) is one or more data processing and/or communications operations performed by one or more user devices and/or servers which facilitate one or more of correlations of two or more activities to facilitate pricing of a given SGP and aligning of the pricing of a given bet when placed as a single bet or as an SGP bet. A FES may include one or more user devices, servers, data stores, communications interfaces, user interfaces, busses, and related components. The FES components may be physically, logically, virtually or otherwise grouped and/or coupled to facilitate the one or more gaming online gaming functions including, but not limited to, those identified herein.
[0059] “Processor” herein refers to one or more known or later developed hardware processors and/or processor systems configured to execute one or more computer instructions, with respect to one or more instances of computer data, and perform one or more logical operations. The computer instructions may include instructions for executing one or more applications, software engines, and/or processes configured to perform computer executable operations. Such hardware and computer instructions may arise in any computing configuration including, but not limited to, local, remote, distributed, blade, virtual, or other configurations and/or system configurations. Non-limiting examples of processors include discrete analog and/or digital components that are integrated on a printed circuit board, as a system on a chip (SOC), or otherwise; Application specific integrated circuits (ASICs); field programmable gate array (FPGA) devices; digital signal processors; general purpose processors such as 32-bit and 64-bit central processing units; multi-core ARM based processors; microprocessors, microcontrollers; and the like. Processors may be implemented in single or parallel or other implementation structures, including distributed, Cloud based, and otherwise.
[0062] “Server” herein refers to one or more devices that include computer hardware and/or computer instructions that provide functionality to one or more other programs or devices (collectively, “clients”). Non-limiting examples of servers include database servers, file servers, application servers, web servers, communications servers, virtual servers, computing servers, and the like. Servers may be combined into clusters (e.g., a server farm), logically or geographically grouped, or otherwise. Any known or later arising technologies may be used for a server.
[0063] A server may instantiate one or more computer engines as one or more threads operating on a computing system having a multiple threaded operating system, such as the WINDOWS, LINUX, APPLE OS, ANDROID, and other operating systems, as an application program on a given device, as a web service, as a combination of the foregoing, or otherwise. An Application Program Interface (API) may be used to support an implementation of the present disclosure. A server may be provided in the virtual domain and/or in the physical domain. A server may be associated with a human user, a machine process executing on one or more computing devices, an API, a web service, instantiated on the Cloud, distributed across multiple computing devices, or otherwise. A server may be any electronic device configurable to communicate data using a network, directly or indirectly, to another device, to another server, or otherwise.
[0065] “User Device” herein refers to a device configured for use by a human being to one or more of communicate, present, process, and store data. Non-limiting examples of user devices include smartphones, laptop computers, tablet computing devices, desktop computers, smart televisions, smart glasses, virtual reality glasses, augmented reality glasses, earbuds/headphones and other audible output devices, and other devices.
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(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brien (US 11,741,276)
As per claim 1,
a user device having a processor executing first non-transient computer instructions which instantiate a single game parlay (“SGP”) application; (Brien discloses the use of a Parlay application useable by the player on a client device comprising a processor) (Brien 17:46 – 63)
wherein the SGP application provides a SGP application user interface which facilitates selection, by a user of the user device, of an SGP bet including a first SGP betting line and a second SGP betting line for an event; (Brien discloses the displaying for selection by a user of a first and second betting line or betting option for a parlay) (Brien 24:43 – 63)
wherein the first SGP betting line specifies a first SGP pricing for a first activity for the event; (Brien discloses the displaying of a first odds related to at least one athlete that can be wagered upon) (Brien 24:43 – 63)
wherein the second SGP betting line specifies a second SGP pricing for a second activity for the event; and (Brien discloses the displaying of a first odds related to at least another athlete that can be wagered upon) (Brien 24:43 – 63)
a front-end server having a front-end processor executing second non-transient computer instructions which instantiate a Counter Tilting Engine (“CTE”) which performs CTE operations that include: aligning the first SGP pricing with a single bet pricing, for a single bet line for the first activity for the event; and (Brien discloses that upon selection of an athlete by the user for use in a parlay the single bet odds is aligned or correlated to a second different odds on the parlay ticket (Brien Fig 3A, initial odds for Cordarrelle Patterson of 1.6 to 9.67 on the bet slip)
wherein the front-end server outputs to the SGP application, for presentation to the user, an adjusted first SGP betting line that is aligned with a current single bet pricing for the first activity for the event. (Brien discloses the outputting of the aligned or adjusted odds for the user upon their betting slip) (Brien Fig 3A, initial odds for Cordarrelle Patterson of 1.6 to 9.67 on the bet slip wherein the odds displayed on the bet slip have a variance in relation to the anytime odds)
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11,100,753: Discloses sports betting engine that uses historical play data to set a baseline odds, computes addition odds by odds making formulas such as monte carlo, and crosses or blends the odds from different formulas to create crossed odds, uses AI to compare the odds against similar historical plays and selects final odds that appear most aligned with profitable historical odds patterns
US 2025/0006009: Executes an event simulation engine that generates simulated outcomes for the selected activities. The system utilizes a props counter engine to compares simulated results with actual in-game results and tracks how individual participants are contributing to team or event outcomes. Then according to the simulations the system provides an estimate of probabilities of events happening and provides pricing for a game parlay.
US 2021/0358270: System that checks how correlated bets inside a parlay are to one another. The system analyzes individual bets and calculates a correlation value that determines how correlated they are with one another. Depending on the determined correlation, the system may limit the bets being able to be placed by a user and/or may modify the payout to be based upon a variable payout model.
Conclusion
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 4/28/2026
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights