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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/20/2026 has been entered.
Procedural Summary
Claim 1, 3, 14, 16, 21 and 22 have been amended
Claim 24 has been newly added.
Claims 2, 5, 8, 12, 15 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 14, 16-24 are pending.
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 therefore, 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, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 14, 16-24 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, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 – 11, 13, 23 and 24 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. (Currently Amended) A computing system, comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one non-transitory memory carrying instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising:
present, via a graphical user interface (GUI), an array comprising a set of numbers arranged in rows and columns, wherein each number in the set of numbers corresponds to a time duration portion of an event;
receive, via the array, a selection of at least one number in the set of numbers, wherein the selection of the at least one number indicates a predicted time duration of the event during which no goal is scored;
determine at least one drawn number of the set of numbers, wherein the at least one drawn number corresponds to an actual time duration of the event during which no goal is scored;
compare the selected at least one number to the at least one drawn number to identify at least one rewarding number, wherein the at least one rewarding number is identified when the actual time duration matches the predicted time duration;
determine a reward amount by conducting a probabilistic analysis based on the at least one rewarding number and a variable returns table, wherein the variable returns table is generated and updated in real time during the event by calculating probabilistic return odds based on a quantity of drawn numbers, a quantity of rewarding numbers, and the selection of the at least one number; and
credit, in response to determining the at least one rewarding number, a user account based on the reward amount.
The claims recite italicized limitations that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, namely, Mathematical Concepts, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes.
More specifically, under this grouping, the italicized limitations represent fundamental economic principles or practices, and managing interactions between people, concepts that are capable of being performed in the human mind including observation , evaluation, judgment or opinion. For example, the italicized limitations are directed towards gaming rules for selecting a selecting at least one number, determining a drawn number associated with a time duration of event, and comparing the selected number to the drawn number to determine a correspondence and crediting user account according to a return table. This falls under the grouping of managing interactions between people, (i.e., following game rules.) and a mental process as it can be performed by the human mind without the aid of a computer. The claims further encompass mathematical concepts which involve mathematical relationships, calculation or equations, such as calculating a reward amount based upon a returns table based upon calculated odds, numbers drawn and selected.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception into 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): a processor, memory and a graphical user interface.
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 a processor, memory and a graphical user interface. 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, Applicant’s specification establishes that these additional elements are generic:
Exemplary Computer System
[0091] FIG. 14 illustrates a diagram of a system of which may be an embodiment of the disclosed technology. Computer system 1400 includes an input/output interface 1401 connected to communication infrastructure 1403 - such as a bus - which forwards data such as graphics, text, and information, from the communication infrastructure 1403 or from a frame buffer (not shown) to other components of computer system 1400. Input/output interface 1401 may be, for example, a display device, a keyboard, touch screen, joystick, trackball, mouse, monitor, speaker, printer, Google Glass® unit, web camera, any other computer peripheral device, or any combination thereof, capable of entering and/or viewing data.
[0092]Computer system 1400 may further include one or more processors 1405, which may be a special purpose or a general-purpose digital signal processor configured to process certain information. Computer system 1400 also includes a main memory 1407, for example random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), mass storage device, or combinations of each. Computer system 1400 may also include a secondary memory 1409 such as a hard disk unit 1411, a removable storage unit 1413, or combinations of each.
Computer system 1400 may also include a communication interface 1415, for example, a modem, a network interface (such as an Ethernet card or Ethernet cable), a communication ort, a PCMCIA slot and card, wired or wireless systems (such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, Infrared), local rea networks, wide area networks, intranets, etc.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/20/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of the claims in view of 35 U.S.C. 101, the Applicant argues in part that the claims are incorrectly characterized as reciting mathematical concepts. Applicant states, “For example, amended claim 1 recites "a probabilistic analysis" and "probabilistic return odds" but does not recite any variables or equations that may be reasonably interpreted as a textual replacement for a particular mathematical relationship or equation defining the optimizing operation and probabilistic constraint. As such, the Office Action incorrectly characterizes the claimed features as reciting a mathematical concept. (Remarks pages 10 – 11). The Examiner respectfully disagree and notes that the claims are indeed directed in part to the grouping of mathematical concepts and notes that the claims specifically recite the calculation of probabilistic return odds based upon a relationship of variables such as number of drawn numbers, a quantity of rewarding numbers and a selection of at least one number (i.e. variables ).
Applicant further argues that the claims are not directed towards a mental process and the claims “cannot practically be performed in the human mind” and “Amended claim 1 recites an invention involving a several-step manipulation of data that, except in its most simplistic form, could not conceivably be performed in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Further, as noted in Synopsys, analysis of whether claim 1 recites a mental process must extend beyond characterization of the claim in its most simplistic form. The system of amended claim 1 describes conducting a probabilistic analysis based on a variable returns table that is generated and dynamically updated in real time. See e.g., Specification at [0073]-[0075]. For a real-time generation and updating of the table described in amended claim 1, a human cannot conceivably perform the multiple steps of live probabilistic analysis recited in amended claim 1 in the human mind or with pencil and paper.” (Remarks page 10). The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that a human can generate a number set array manually by pen and paper. A human can receive a selection such as by listening to a player selecting a number. A human can determine when a number is drawn by observation. A human can compare the selected number to a drawn number by using mental means of comparison to determine a match. A human can generate, update and present a variable returns table in real time by using mental calculations and pen and paper. A human can determine a reward amount by probabilistic analysis using mental calculations and pen and paper. A human can credit a user account with a reward amount based upon the rewarding number by means of determining how much money to pay to a player. These are clearly limitations that are properly categorized as Mental Processes as well as Certain Methods of Organizing human activity, such as managing interactions between people as they clearly are directed towards gaming rules that govern interactions of a player to play a number draw game.
Regarding Step 2A: Prong 2, the Applicant states:
“Similarly to the claims in Enfish, amended claim 1 is directed to a specific type of data structure designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory. These features of a variable returns table are directed to an improvement in existing technology as the specification provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the claimed features achieve benefits over conventional systems. For example, "one drawback [to conventional systems], however, is that the activities are, in a sense, one-dimensional. Users merely select their numbers and wait a set of numbers to be drawn. Generally, there is no strategy or interaction to maintain the user's interest. These and other shortcomings are largely due to limitations of existing technologies, which may be unable to integrate information (e.g., real-time information) associated with events, such as timed sporting events, and which may not adequately facilitate interaction (e.g., using graphical user interfaces). Additionally, existing technologies may not facilitate customized return tables. Accordingly, there is a need for technologies that facilitate interaction and development during the activity and provide a better and fuller experience for the user." specification at [0006]-[0007]. This conclusion is reinforced by the precedential decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's Appeals Review Panel in Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal 2024-000567 (PTAB Sept. 26, 2025) (precedential), which the USPTO has incorporated into the MPEP. Desjardins confirms, under Enfish, that "software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology," and instructs that examiners "should not evaluate claims at such a high level of generality" or dismiss claim elements as generic computer components without adequate explanation.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the Applicant first alleges that the claims “1 is directed to a specific type of data structure designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory.”. However, the Applicant fails to provide any persuasive reasoning as to how or in what specific way, beyond the mere allegation, that the “way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory is improved. The Applicant then appears to argue that the improvements are more akin to improving the user experience by the statement of ” Generally, there is no strategy or interaction to maintain the user's interest. These and other shortcomings are largely due to limitations of existing technologies, which may be unable to integrate information (e.g., real-time information) associated with events, such as timed sporting events, and which may not adequately facilitate interaction (e.g., using graphical user interfaces). Additionally, existing technologies may not facilitate customized return tables. Accordingly, there is a need for technologies that facilitate interaction and development during the activity and provide a better and fuller experience for the user." specification at [0006]-[0007]." (Remarks page 14). These are improvements to a user’s gaming experience and not improvements to the functioning of the computer. The Applicant further attempts to compare the claim limitations to examples 37 – 42 but fails to provide any persuasive evidence to the fact patterns of those examples beyond the assertion of “Similarly, amended claim 1 recites an additional element of analyzing and formatting data to generate the variable returns table and presenting the variable returns table in real time.” (Remarks page 15). Examiner is not persuaded.
Regarding Step 2B, the Applicant argues “MPEP 2106.05 states that with regards to Step 2B, claimed features directed to non- conventional and non-generic arrangement of components represent patent eligible inventive concepts. The arrangement of the specific GUI components represents a non- conventional and non-generic arrangement of GUI elements specific to the claimed system.
For example, [0079] of the specification state that
In some implementations, the exemplary array 900 of FIG. 9 can be modified to be similar to the implementation illustrated with reference to FIG. 8B above, such that that array 900 can be used to select times during the soccer match during which the user believes that no goals will be scored, and the returns table 908 can be correspondingly modified. In these and other implementations, the array 900 can similarly comprise and/or be provided via a graphical user interface (GUI), which can present dynamic real-time gameplay data based on translated, modified, and/or dynamically processed data for an event.
As discussed above, this dynamic real-time presentation of the variable returns table of amended claim 1 based on an actual, live event and a user's actual, live selection is non-conventional and non-generic because existing technologies do not use real-time information in this way, and thus inadequately facilitate interaction.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claims rely on additional limitations, as identified by the Examiner above, wherein the additional limitations are clearly directed towards GUI or displays that are merely used or relied upon for their conventional and generic functionality. In the case of the instant claims, the limitations rely upon the conventional use of a GUI display, that is to display information or data, regardless of the fact that the information may be old information, real-time information or information that is visually emphasized as argued with respect to claim 24. Regarding the limitations of newly added claim 24, the applicant once again states that the limitations of “visually emphasizing” provide “technical improvements”. The Examiner disagrees and notes that even by the Applicants own arguments, these “technical improvements” are merely improvements to the user experience when playing the game. Examiner has highlighted the Applicant’s arguments supporting the Examiner’s position.
“This real-time visual emphasis, as supported by the specification, is a unique technical improvement to current systems integral to the claim, as shown in the specification, which describes that the existing, one-dimensional technologies' lack of "strategy or interaction to maintain the user's interest" are "largely due to limitations of existing technologies, which may be unable to integrate information (e.g., real-time information) associated with events, such as timed sporting events, and which may not adequately facilitate interaction (e.g., using graphical user interfaces). Additionally, existing technologies may not facilitate customized return tables." Specification, [0006] (emphasis added). In other words, the visual emphasis of real-time change in the system is a unique inventive aspect that solves a problem in existing technologies: namely, the lack of interaction between a user and the system due to the lack of integration of "real-time information" (i.e., dynamic updating, modification, and visual emphasis of GUI elements). Id´(Remarks page 17)
The Applicant’s usage of the GUI amounts to merely a tool to render a game outcome as opposed to a technical improvement to ho the GUI functions or operates. The GUI is merely used as a tool to display output information and can further be deemed to be "extra-solution" activity. See MPEP 2106.05(a), II, Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48.
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 9/25/2026
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
