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 .
The Applicant’s amendment and argument received on 03/27/2026 has been considered. It is noted that claims 1-31 has been cancelled. New claims 32-53 has been added.
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 32-53 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 32-53 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 32 recite the steps of a computer-implemented method under control of a server in communication with a plurality of player terminals over a network for processing online betting associated with an online contest for players of the player terminals, the server storing therein a database that determines a plurality of benefit grades defining respectively different percentages-to-win for lottery selection, wherein the benefit grades are determined depending on a total amount of bets made by players participating in a same team of betting, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving first betting information from a first player terminal associated with a first player, the first betting information including an amount of value to be betted by the first player on a betting target associated with the online contest;
registering, as a same first team, a plurality of players including the first player and at least one second player associated with at least one second player terminal, in response to a join request received from the second terminal during a predetermined time window until a betting deadline;
in response to the join request, generating and transmitting signals to cause substantially simultaneous display updates of a team play screen on the first and second player terminals, wherein the team play screen includes, with reference of the database, display of (a) information indicative of a current benefit grade for the first team determined based on a total amount of bets currently made by all players in the first team and (b) information indicative of additional value required to upgrade the current benefit grade to a more favorable benefit grade;
after the display updates of the team play screen, receiving second betting information from the second player terminal, the second betting information including an amount of value to be betted by the second player on the betting target;
after the betting deadline has passed, in response to receipt of a result of the online contest, determining a benefit grade assigned to the first team based on a total amount of bets confirmed in the first team with reference to the database, and using a random generator to process the lottery selection that draws a hit according to the percentages-to-win defined by the determined grade; and
generating and transmitting signals to cause substantially simultaneous display updates of a result screen on the first and second player terminals, wherein the result screen includes display of benefits given to the first player and the second player as a result of the processing of the lottery- selection.
Claim 52 recited a server in communication with a plurality of player terminals over a network for processing online betting associated with an online contest for players of the player terminals, the server comprising:
a database that determines a plurality of benefit grades defining respectively different percentages-to-win for lottery selection, wherein the benefit grades are determined depending on a total amount of bets made by players participating in a same team of betting;
a processor;
a memory storing computer program instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to perform operations comprising:
receiving first betting information from a first player terminal associated with a first player, the first betting information including an amount of value to be betted by the first player on a betting target associated with the online contest;
registering, as a same first team, a plurality of players including the first player and at least one second player associated with at least one second player terminal, in response to a join request received from the second terminal during a predetermined time window until a betting deadline;
in response to the join request, generating and transmitting signals to cause substantially simultaneous display updates of a team play screen on the first and second player terminals, wherein the team play screen includes, with reference of the database, display of (a) information indicative of a current benefit grade for the first team determined based on a total amount of bets currently made by all players in the first team and (b) information indicative of additional value required to upgrade the current benefit grade to a more favorable benefit grade;
after the display updates of the team play screen, receiving second betting information from the second player terminal, the second betting information including an amount of value to be betted by the second player on the betting target;
after the betting deadline has passed, in response to receipt of a result of the online contest, determining a benefit grade assigned to the first team based on a total amount of bets confirmed in the first team with reference to the database, and using a random generator to process the lottery selection that draws a hit according to the percentages-to-win defined by the determined grade; and
generating and transmitting signals to cause substantially simultaneous display updates of a result screen on the first and second player terminals, wherein the result screen includes display of benefits given to the first player and the second player as a result of the processing of the lottery-selection.
Claim 53 recites a computer program product embodied on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, the computer program product including instructions for a server in communication with a plurality of player terminals over a network, the server storing therein a database that determines a plurality of benefit grades defining respectively different percentages-to-win for lottery selection, wherein the benefit grades are determined depending on a total amount of bets made by players participating in a same team of betting, wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor of the server, causes the server to perform operations comprising:
receiving first betting information from a first player terminal associated with a first player, the first betting information including an amount of value to be betted by the first player on a betting target associated with an online contest;
registering, as a same first team, a plurality of players including the first player and at least one second player associated with at least one second player terminal, in response to a join request received from the second terminal during a predetermined time window until a betting deadline;
in response to the join request, generating and transmitting signals to cause substantially simultaneous display updates of a team play screen on the first and second player terminals, wherein the team play screen includes, with reference of the database, display of (a) information indicative of a current benefit grade for the first team determined based on a total amount of bets currently made by all players in the first team and (b) information indicative of additional value required to upgrade the current benefit grade to a more favorable benefit grade;
after the display updates of the team play screen, receiving second betting information from the second player terminal, the second betting information including an amount of value to be betted by the second player on the betting target;
after the betting deadline has passed, in response to receipt of a result of the online contest, determining a benefit grade assigned to the first team based on a total amount of bets confirmed in the first team with reference to the database, and using a random generator to process the lottery selection that draws a hit according to the percentages-to-win defined by the determined grade; and
generating and transmitting signals to cause substantially simultaneous display updates of a result screen on the first and second player terminals, wherein the result screen includes display of benefits given to the first player and the second player as a result of the processing of the lottery- selection.
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, receiving betting information associated with an online contest from a first user and providing a signal associated with the first betting information to the remote server) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction, such as retrieving a result of the online contest and comparing the results of the online contest to the target and the value of the user to provide, in real time, a reward when the comparing determines a match between the results of the online contest and the target and the value of the user). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of providing a prompt in a display for a user to enter a target and a value) may fall within this grouping.
The claim limitations (as underlined) recite that a contest is initiated and a monetary target and value associated with a user is received. The steps of participating in a contest with monetary input and output 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 32-53 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 32-53 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 the contest. As indicated in Applicant’s specification, the user device is a general purpose computer. The claim indicates that that system is connected to a terminal, 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 for receiving, indicating, retrieving, etc.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to the Applicant’s argument to the 35 USC 101 rejection, the examiner disagrees. The examiner points out that, “processing online betting associated with an online contest for players of the player terminals, the server storing therein a database that determines a plurality of benefit grades defining respectively different percentages-to-win for lottery selection, wherein the benefit grades are determined depending on a total amount of bets made by players participating in a same team of betting” as recited in the claims are directed to exchanging and resolving financial obligations, which is a step of a fundamental economic principle or practice. According to the MPEP 2106, The courts have used the phrases “fundamental economic practices” or “ fundamental economic principles” to describe concepts relating to the economy and commerce.
Other examples of "fundamental economic principles or practices" include:
i. mitigating settlement risk, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank,573 U.S. 208, 218, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982 (2014);
ii. rules for conducting a wagering game, In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
iii. financial instruments that are designed to protect against the risk of investing in financial instruments, In re Chorna, 656 Fed. App'x 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential);
iv. offer-based price optimization, OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362–63, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
v. local processing of payments for remotely purchased goods, Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath Beyond, 876 F.3d 1372, 1378-79, 125 USPQ2d 1019, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
vi. using a marking affixed to the outside of a mail object to communicate information about the mail object, i.e., the sender, recipient, and contents of the mail object, Secured Mail Solutions LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 873 F.3d 905, 911, 124 USPQ2d 1502, 1506 (Fed. Cir. 2017); and
vii. placing an order based on displayed market information, Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
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.
6. 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 on 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 on (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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/ADETOKUNBO O TORIMIRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights