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 .
This communication is to response to Application No. 18/434,962 filed on 02/07/2024.
Claims 1-19 are currently pending and has been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed on 02/23/2024 is considered.
The drawings filed on 02/07/2024 are noted.
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.
7. Claims 1, 8, 16, and all dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the limitation of: “receiving from a user a request to place a wager on an event; and presenting for purchase to the user an option to cancel the wager in exchange for a refund amount”.
The limitation of receiving from a user a request to place a wager on an event; and presenting for purchase to the user an option to cancel the wager in exchange for a refund amount, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claims preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1-19 recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite one additional element – using a processor to present for purchase to the user an option to cancel the wager in exchange for a refund amount; wherein presenting the option includes presenting for selection by the user at least a first exercise time and a second exercise time, the first exercise time having a first fee associated therewith and the second exercise time having a second fee associated therewith; wherein a price of the option is based on the fee associated with the exercise time selected by the use; wherein selection of the first exercise time allows the user to cancel the wager at least prior to the first exercise time in exchange for the refund amount; wherein selection of the second exercise time allows the user to cancel the wager at least prior to the second exercise time in exchange for the refund amount; receiving an indication that the user is purchasing the option at a particular time; and including receiving a selection by the user of either the first exercise time or the second exercise time to perform both presenting and receiving steps. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer facilitating access to financial transactions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In the instant case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of recording an indication that the user has paid for the option, wherein a price of the option is based on the fee associated with the exercise time selected by the user; at least prior to the selected exercise time, receiving an indication that the user is exercising the option; responsive to the user exercising the option, cancelling the wager in exchange for the refund amount; and wherein the refund amount associated with each of the first and second exercise time is based on when the option is purchased by the user before a start of the event. Thus, taken alone, the additional element fails to ensure the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Accordingly, claims 1-19 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
9. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11, 12, 14-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Brook (US Pat. No. 8,475,267).
As per claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-7, Brook discloses:
A method comprising:
receiving, from a user a request to place a wager on an event; (Figs 1 and 2, col 4, lines 7-20); presenting for purchase to the user an option to cancel the wager in exchange for a refund amount (se., figs 1 and, col 4, lines 7-20, which includes “receiving, by the at least one processor, a request to place a wager of a bettor for a bet regarding an outcome of an event); wherein presenting the option includes presenting for selection by the user at least a first exercise time and a second exercise time, the first exercise time having a first fee associated therewith and the second exercise time having a second fee associated therewith (see., col 15, lines 15-20, col 1, lines 46-51, col 19, lines 27-42, col 5, lines 3-35, col 20, lines 25-42); wherein price of the option is based on the fee associated with the exercise time selected by the user (see., (see., col 15, lines 15-20, col 1, lines 46-51, col 19, lines 27-42, col 5, lines 3-35, col 20, lines 25-42); wherein selection of the first exercise time allows the user to cancel the wager at least prior to the first exercise time in exchange for the refund amount (see., fig 4, col 1, lines 46-51, col 19, lines 27-42, col 5, lines 3-35, col 20, lines 25-42); wherein selection of the second exercise time allows the user to cancel the wager at least prior to the second exercise time in exchange for the refund amount (see., fig 4, e.g., in exchange, col 19, lines 27-42, col 5, lines 3-35, col 20, lines 25-42)) (see at least FIGS. 1 and 2),
receiving an indication that the user is purchasing the option at a particular time, including receiving a selection by the user of either the first exercise time or the second exercise time (see., col 1, lines 46-51, col 19, lines 27-42, col 5, lines 3-35, col 20, lines 25-42);
recording an indication that the user has paid for the option, wherein a price of the option is based on the fee associated with the exercise time selected by the user; at least prior to the selected exercise time, receiving an indication that the user is exercising the option; responsive to the user exercising the option, cancelling the wager in exchange for the refund amount; and wherein the refund amount associated with each of the first and second exercise time is based on when the option is purchased by the user before a start of the event (see., col 15, lines 15-20, col 1, lines 46-51, col 19, lines 27-42, col 5, lines 3-35, col 20, lines 25-42, which includes receiving an indication that the bettor exercises the option to cancel the wager during a break in play (e.g., prior to selected exercise time)).
As per claims 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 15, Brook discloses:
An apparatus comprising:
At least one processor configured to: receive, over a communication network (see., col 6, lines 1-59, communication network 108), from a first remote device a request to place a wager on an event and a request to purchase an option to receive a refund amount in exchange for cancelling the at least one wager at a first time having a first fee or a second time a second fee ; (Figs 1 and 2, col 4, lines 7-20); cause to be presented, over the communication network to the first remote device, at a graphical user interface of a display device of the first remote device, indicia representing the option to receive the refund amount at the first time or the second time in exchange for cancelling the at least one wager (se., fig 4, e.g., in exchange, col 19, lines 27-42, col 5, lines 3-35, col 20, lines 25-42)) (see at least FIGS. 1 and 2); and record an indication that the first remote device paid for the option, wherein a price of the option is based on the first fee or the second fee associated with the first time or second time selected by the first remote device (see., col 15, lines 15-20, col 1, lines 46-51, col 19, lines 27-42, col 5, lines 3-35, col 20, lines 25-42); responsive to the first remote device paying for the option, cancel the at least one wager in exchange for the refund amount; wherein the refund amount associated with each of the first and second time is based on when the option is purchased by the user before a start of the event (see., col 15, lines 15-20, col 1, lines 46-51, col 19, lines 27-42, col 5, lines 3-35, col 20, lines 25-42, which includes receiving an indication that the bettor exercises the option to cancel the wager during a break in play (e.g., prior to selected exercise time)).
As per claims 16 and 19, Brook discloses:
An apparatus comprising:
At least one processor configured to: receive, over a communication network (see., col 6, lines 1-59, communication network 108) , from a first remote device a request to place a wager on an event and a request to purchase an option to receive a refund amount in exchange for cancelling the at least one wager at a first time having a first fee or a second time a second fee ; (Figs 1 and 2, col 4, lines 7-20); cause to be presented, over the communication network to the first remote device, at a graphical user interface of a display device of the first remote device, indicia representing the option to receive the refund amount at the first time or the second time in exchange for cancelling the at least one wager (se., fig 4, e.g., in exchange, col 19, lines 27-42, col 5, lines 3-35, col 20, lines 25-42)) (see at least FIGS. 1 and 2); and record an indication that the first remote device paid for the option, wherein a price of the option is based on the first fee or the second fee associated with the first time or second time selected by the first remote device (see., col 15, lines 15-20, col 1, lines 46-51, col 19, lines 27-42, col 5, lines 3-35, col 20, lines 25-42); responsive to the first remote device paying for the option, cancel the at least one wager in exchange for the refund amount; wherein the refund amount associated with each of the first and second time is based on when the option is purchased by the user before a start of the event (see., col 15, lines 15-20, col 1, lines 46-51, col 19, lines 27-42, col 5, lines 3-35, col 20, lines 25-42, which includes receiving an indication that the bettor exercises the option to cancel the wager during a break in play (e.g., prior to selected exercise time)).
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.
Claims 3, 5, 10, 13, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brook (US Pat. NO. 8,475,267).
As per claims 3, 5, 10, 13, 17, and 18, Brook discloses the claimed limitations as stated in claim 1 above, wherein the fund amount is calculated (see Brook. More specifically, see at least col. 15, lines 15-20 and col. 1, lines 46-51)
Brook does not expressly disclose:
in which the act of calculating the refund amount comprises comparing (1) the amount of total potential liability associated with paying payouts on winning wagers resulting from the event outcome and an amount of total potential proceeds associated with losing wagers resulting from the event outcome.
However, the examiner submits it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Brook’s teachings such that the express configuration of claim employed for at least the following reasons.
It is well known that bookies/sports books aim to ensure a profit (i.e., the vigorish) regardless of an outcome of a wager by attempting to attract an equal dollar amount of wagers for each team. (e.g., see Brook col. 1, lines 10-20).
With this background in mind, Brook discloses a variety of ways to determine the refund amount. For example, Brook discloses that the determination of the refund amount may be determined in any manner that the sport book chooses (col. 18, lines 38-40) and that the refund amount may be based on anything (col. 20, lines 17-18). Some of the more specific examples discussed throughout Brook include determining the refund amount based on a historical probability model, a coin toss, an individual or entity with special expertise, voting, a static amount, a percentage of the original bet, a flat amount, or any combination thereof. (e.g., see at least col. 18, lines 38-47 and col. 20, lines 17-24). Further, FIG. 6 and the corresponding description thereof also disclose determining the refund amount based on, among other things, "a probability of whether the bettor will win the bet" and "an amount that would be paid to the bettor that would be paid to the bettor if the bettor were to win the bet.”
Notably, col. 19, lines 27 to 42 discloses yet another example of how to determine the refund amount. Here, the determination of the refund amount may be based on the dollar value of the current number of options being exercised. As recited, the purpose of this determination is to keep a balanced number of options being exercised for each team of the sporting event. Again, it is well known that bookies aim to ensure a profit regardless of an outcome of a wager by attempting to attract an equal dollar amount of wagers for each team. Although not expressly recited, the only reason a bookie would desire to keep a balanced number of options being exercised between two teams would be continue to maintain/aim for the well-known concept of attracting an equal dollar amount of wagers for each team. The exercise of an option is necessary linked to (and affects) the potential liability and potential proceeds of Brook because exercising any option cancels the wager, and therefore affects the overall liability and proceeds of the bookie. In other words, although not expressly recited in Brook, by determining the refund amount based on the dollar value of the current number of options currently being exercised, the bookie is in effect determining the refund amount based on the potential liability and proceeds. The motivation to expressly base the determination of the refund amount on the potential liability and proceeds (as well as the dollar value of the current number of options being exercised) is based on the well-known concept of continuing aim to ensure a profit regardless of an outcome of a wager by attempting to attract an equal dollar amount of wagers for each team. (e.g., see Brook col. 1, lines 10-20), as well as it being known that refund amount may be determined based on anything such as the examples discussed above. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PIERRE E ELISCA whose telephone number is (571) 272-6706. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Thursday; 6:30AM- 7:30PM. Hoteler.
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, Hu Kang can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PIERRE E ELISCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715