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 1 is currently pending and prosecuted.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an Abstract Idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “a method of managing a betting platform to determine results for a set of games” in which the user sets match data for the set of games, which includes the point spread, a moneyline, and an over/under for each game, provides a date and time stamp for the games, accepts the user selections, and compares the outcome of the game to the user selections to determine a winner of the match. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is directed to an abstract idea, in this case, determining betting odds for a set of games, with additional generic computer elements, explain that the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, the claim is directed to a method of using a naturally occurring correlation and the data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity that simply compares the data created by the user, selected by the user and compared by the user to determine a winner for a match. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to “mere automation of manual processes,” “a commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer” and “gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result.”
As such, Claim 1 is rejected under 101 for being directed towards an Abstract Idea without significantly more.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "pick ‘em game”" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Additionally, Claim 1 is 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.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites the limitations “setting match data for a match of the set of games, wherein the match data includes a point spread, a moneyline, and an over/under amount for each game of the set of games; providing a date and time stamp for the match data and pick ‘em game entry.” However, the match data of a moneyline and a pick’em entry are considered the same. A pick’em entry is commonly known as a specific type of moneyline bet where oddsmakers have determined that neither side is a clear favorite or underdog. Thus, it is unclear to the Examiner how the user may select a moneyline bet within the match data and also select a pick’em bet given a pick’em bet is a version of the moneyline bet.
As such, Claim 1 is rejected under 112(b) for being indefinite.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huke et al., US PG-Pub 2022/0398898, hereinafter Huke.
Regarding Claim 1, Huke teaches a method of managing a betting platform to determine results for a set of games (Figs. 1-2, and corresponding descriptions; “play-by-play wagering network”), the method comprising:
setting match data for a match of the set of games ([0066], “a wagering software application or a wagering app 110, which is a program that enables the user to place bets on individual plays in the live event 102”; [0074], “embodiments may include the odds calculation module 128, which utilizes historical play data to calculate odds for in-play wagers”), wherein the match data includes a point spread, a moneyline, and an over/under amount for each game of the set of games ([0061], “The live event 102 may include some number of actions or plays, upon which a user, bettor, or customer can place a bet or wager, typically through an entity called a sportsbook. There are numerous types of wagers the bettor can make, including, but not limited to, a straight bet, a money line bet, or a bet with a point spread . . . Another type of wager the bettor can make is an over/under”);
providing a date and time stamp for the match data and pick ‘em game entry ([0069], “embodiments may include a time confirmation module 116, which may begin with the time confirmation module 116 continuously polling for a request from the verification module 130 for the timestamp of the wager.”);
receiving picks for the match of the set of games ([0068], “embodiments may include a wager placement module 114, which may begin with the user selecting a wager on the wagering app 110.”);
associating the picks with the match based on the data and time stamp ([0070], “embodiments may include a wager time database 118, which may contain the wager ID, such as #789456123, the time stamp, such as 11:59:55 am, and the screenshot of the wager confirmation in a JPEG file, such as #789456123.JPEG.”);
receiving results for the set of games, wherein the results include a score and statistics for each game ([0071], “embodiments may include the wagering network 120, which may perform real-time analysis on the type of play and the result of a play or action. The wagering network 120 (or the cloud 106) may also be synchronized with game situational data, such as the time of the game, the score, location on the field, weather conditions, and the like, which may affect the choice of play utilized”); and
determining a winner for the match based on the picks and the results for the set of games ([0066], “The wagering app 110 allows the user to interact with the wagering network 120 to place bets and provide payment/receive funds based on wager outcomes”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Isgar, US PG-Pub 2021/0319653, teaches a betting platform that pools users picks and determines a winner from the group of users;
Cronin, US PG-Pub 2022/0172561, teaches a betting platform that provides time stamps and wagers to determine the user behavior; and
Huke et al., US PG-Pub 2022/0130207, teaches a betting platform that allows parlaying of events from different games.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN T REED whose telephone number is (571)272-7234. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 0800-1800.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. 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.
STEPHEN T. REED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2627
/Stephen T. Reed/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627