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 § 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 recites the steps of a method, comprising:
receiving, at a processor, (1) a first expression including at least one first variable associated with an event and not deterministic of a final score for the event, and (2) an event identifier associated with the event;
predicting, via the processor, based on the first expression and the event identifier, and using a machine learning model trained on historical data associated with the event, a first mean value indicating an expected mean of the first expression when the event ends;
receiving, at the processor, wager data associated with the first expression;
sending, via the processor and based on the wager data, a backpropagation signal to cause a modification to one or more parameters included in the machine learning model to produce a modified machine learning model;
receiving, at the processor, a second expression including at least one second variable associated with the event, different from the at least one first variable, and not determinative of the final score for the event;
predicting, via the processor and using the modified machine learning model, a second mean value indicating an expected result of the second expression when the event ends;
receiving, at the processor, an indication of a bet associated with one of the first expression or the second expression;
generating, via the processor and based on live data associated with the event, a variable range for each variable from one of the at least one first variable or the at least one second variable;
generating, via the processor, an outcome range based on (1) one of the first expression or the second expression and (2) the variable range for each variable from one of the at least one first variable or the at least one second variable; and
sending, via the processor and before the event ends, a signal configured to cause the bet to settle based on the outcome range.
Claim 11 recites a non-transitory processor-readable medium storing code representing instructions to be executed by one or more processors, the instructions comprising code to cause the one or more processors to:
receive, via a graphical user interface, at least one bet condition associated with a sporting event and not deterministic of a final score for the sporting event;
generate an expression based on the at least one bet condition;
send a signal including the expression to a bet facilitation processor;
receive an odds value based on the expression and generated via the bet facilitation processor that used a machine learning model;
cause display of the odds value via the graphical user interface;
receive, via the graphical user interface and in response to the display of the odds value, a wager value;
receive, while the sporting event is still ongoing, a settlement indication based on at least one outcome occurring in the sporting event; and
cause, based on the settlement indication and while the sporting event is still ongoing, one of (1) payment of an amount determined based on the odds value and the wager value or (2) display of an indication of a lost bet.
Claim 16 recites a non-transitory processor-readable medium storing code representing instructions to be executed by one or more processors, the instructions comprising code to cause the one or more processors to:
receive a first proposition bet represented as a first expression and associated with a sporting event that has yet to commence or that is in progress;
generate, using a statistical model and based on historical data associated with the sporting event, a first mean value indicating a first probability that the first proposition bet will be won by a first bettor;
receive aggregated wager data associated with the first proposition bet;
modify, based on the aggregated wager data and using a backpropagation technique, at least one parameter included in the statistical model to result in a modified statistical model;
receive a second proposition bet different from the first proposition bet, represented as a second expression, and associated with the sporting event that has yet to commence or that is in progress; and
generate, using the modified statistical model, a second mean value indicating a second probability that the second proposition bet will be won by a second bettor.
The claim limitations (as underlined above) are steps of organizing human activity.
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).
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)(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 1-3, 5-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huke et al (US 2022/0157114).
Regarding claims 1, 11, 16, and 18-20 Huke et al discloses a method, comprising: receiving, at a processor, a first expression including at least one first variable associated with an event and not deterministic of a final score for the event, and an event identifier associated with the event (see paragraph [0004], showing a method for generating and adjusting odds, including receiving statistical information of a live event in real time); predicting, via the processor, based on the first expression and the event identifier, and using a machine learning model trained on historical data associated with the event, a first mean value indicating an expected mean of the first expression when the event ends (see abstract; paragraph [0005], showing executing on a processor the steps of displaying a sports wagering platform; displaying a live event on which wagers can be made; displaying adjusted odds for one or more predictions for a future play; Machine learning can be applied to the historical data in order to improve the betting odds); receiving, at the processor, wager data associated with the first expression (see paragraph [0028], showing placing bets on the outcome of sporting event); sending, via the processor and based on the wager data, a backpropagation signal to cause a modification to one or more parameters included in the machine learning model to produce a modified machine learning model (see paragraph [0080], showing the odds module 126 can be made available for access, reconfiguration, modification); receiving, at the processor, a second expression including at least one second variable associated with the event, different from the at least one first variable, and not determinative of the final score for the event (see claim 1 of Huke et al, showing detecting a second state based on received situational data of the live event in real time; determining an effect of the second state on the first state; adjusting the wager odds based on the effect of the second state on the first state; and displaying the adjusted odds on a live video feed); predicting, via the processor and using the modified machine learning model, a second mean value indicating an expected result of the second expression when the event ends (see claim 1 of Huke et al, showing detecting a second state based on received situational data of the live event in real time; determining an effect of the second state on the first state; adjusting the wager odds based on the effect of the second state on the first state; and displaying the adjusted odds on a live video feed); receiving, at the processor, an indication of a bet associated with one of the first expression or the second expression (see paragraph [0028], showing placing bets on the outcome of sporting event); generating, via the processor and based on live data associated with the event, a variable range for each variable from one of the at least one first variable or the at least one second variable (see claim 1 of Huke et al, showing detecting a second state based on received situational data of the live event in real time; determining an effect of the second state on the first state; adjusting the wager odds based on the effect of the second state on the first state; and displaying the adjusted odds on a live video feed); generating, via the processor, an outcome range based on one of the first expression or the second expression and the variable range for each variable from one of the at least one first variable or the at least one second variable (see paragraph [0079], showing the odds module 126 may use data from the historic action database 130 to create odds for one or more potential outcomes of the current state of the live event); and sending, via the processor and before the event ends, a signal configured to cause the bet to settle based on the outcome range (see paragraph [0079], showing the odds module 126 may use data from the historic action database 130 to create odds for one or more potential outcomes of the current state of the live event).
Regarding claim 2: Huke et al discloses wherein: the event is a sporting event; and the event identifier indicates at least one of entities involved in the sporting event or a date on which the sporting event is held (see paragraph [0026], showing an action may be a strategic decision made by a participant in the sporting event such as a player, coach, management, etc. In some embodiments, an action may be a penalty, foul, or type of infraction occurring in a sporting event. In some embodiments, an action may include the participants of the sporting event).
Regarding claim 3: Huke et al discloses wherein the first expression and the second expression are each represented using a domain-specific programming language (see paragraph [0047], showing managed service user interface service is a service that can help customers (1) manage third parties, (2) develop the web, (3) do data analytics, (4) connect thru application program interfaces).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 13: Huke et al discloses wherein the bet includes a proposition bet (see paragraph [0069], showing there are other types of wagers, including parlays, teasers and prop bets, that are added games that often allow the user to customize their betting by changing the odds and payouts they receive on a wager).
Regarding claim 6: Huke et al discloses wherein at least one of the first expression or the second expression includes at least two variables associated with the event and not determinative of the final score of the event (see claim 1 of Huke et al, showing detecting a second state based on received situational data of the live event in real time; determining an effect of the second state on the first state; adjusting the wager odds based on the effect of the second state on the first state; and displaying the adjusted odds on a live video feed).
Regarding claim 7: Huke et al discloses wherein the event is a first event, and the historical data includes outcome data for at least one second event associated with the first event (see paragraph [0006], showing historic action database that stores data collected from at least one of one or more previous events and one or more previous actions; an odds module that determines correlations between the data in the live event database and data in the historic action database).
Regarding claim 8: Huke et al discloses wherein the method further includes generating, via the processor and using the machine learning model, a confidence value associated with the first mean value (see abstract, showing utilizing artificial intelligence and/or machine learning to produce sports analytics based on historical score data for specific teams, players, events, or other relevant data. Machine learning can be applied to the historical data in order to improve the betting odds).
Regarding claims 10, 14, and 15: Huke et al discloses wherein the signal is a first signal, and the method further comprises: receiving, at the processor, a payout rate indicating a desired payout to received wager ratio; generating, via the processor, an odds value indicating a likelihood of payout based on one of the first mean value or the second mean value, and the payout rate; and sending, via the processor, a second signal configured to cause the one of the first mean value or the second mean value to be displayed at a user compute device (see paragraphs [0055], [0069], showing types of wagers, including parlays, teasers and prop bets, that are added games that often allow the user to customize their betting by changing the odds and payouts they receive on a wager; The “cash out” or “pay out” or “payout” can be integrated into the embodiments in a variety of manners, including both monetary and non-monetary payouts, such as points, prizes, promotional or discount codes, and the like).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huke et al (US 2022/0157114) in view of Jha et al (US 2022/0374292).
Regarding claim 4: Huke et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed.
However, Huke et al does not disclose wherein: the first expression includes a first Boolean expression and the second expression includes a second Boolean expression; the first mean value represents a first probability that the first Boolean expression will evaluate to 1 when the event ends; and the second mean value represents a second probability that the second Boolean expression will evaluate to 1 when the event ends.
In an analogous invention, Jha et al teaches wherein: the first expression includes a first Boolean expression and the second expression includes a second Boolean expression; the first mean value represents a first probability that the first Boolean expression will evaluate to 1 when the event ends; and the second mean value represents a second probability that the second Boolean expression will evaluate to 1 when the event ends (see paragraph [0085], showing rule comprises a Boolean expression that includes the criteria for rule applicability, an action, and parameters used for carrying out the actions. In the table 1902 shown in FIG. 19, each row of the table corresponds to a rule. A first, rule 1 (1904 in FIG. 91), is applied to a log/event message when application of the Boolean expression 1906 to the log/event message returns a value TRUE. This expression indicates that rule 1 is applicable to a log/event message msg when the message includes a first phrase phrase_1, does not include a first term term_1, and includes, as the value of a first field, a second phrase phrase_2 or when the message includes the first phrase phrase_1 as well as a second term term_2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify Huke et al’s sporting event as taught by Jha et al’s Boolean expression for the purpose of including criteria rule applicability and parameters used for carrying out the actions in the wagering sporting event. This yields the expected result of increasing the player satisfaction and enjoyment of the wagering game.
Regarding claims 9 and 17: Huke et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed.
However, Huke et al does not disclose wherein the predicting includes: generating, via the processor, a parse tree based on the first expression, the parse tree having at least one node associated with the at least one first variable; and generating, via the processor and using the machine learning model, the first mean value based on the parse tree.
In an analogous invention, Jha et al teaches wherein the predicting includes: generating, via the processor, a parse tree based on the first expression, the parse tree having at least one node associated with the at least one first variable; and generating, via the processor and using the machine learning model, the first mean value based on the parse tree (see paragraph [0086], showing a rule-based system or a machine-learning system, such as a neural network, can be used to generate an event type for each log/error message and/or parse the log/error message).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify Huke et al’s sporting event as taught by Jha et al’s parse generation for the purpose of providing a connection between the variables and the machine learning. This yields the expected result of improving the data generated by the system and thereby increasing the user’s satisfaction of the system.
Conclusion
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