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 .
Procedural Summary
Claim 1, 9, 14, 17, 21, 22 have been amended
Claim 23 has been newly added.
Claims 5, 8, 12, 15 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13, 14, 16-23 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 therefor, 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 1-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13, 14, 16-23 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 – 13 and 23 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 in to 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 and amendments to the claims filed 1/12/2026 with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been overcome.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/12/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant points to the newly made amendment of “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 argues “the features recite a determination of the reward amount by conducting a probabilistic analysis based on the one or more rewarding numbers and a variable returns table, wherein the variable returns table is generated and updated in real time by calculating probabilistic return odds based on the quantity of drawn numbers, the quantity of rewarding numbers, and the one or more selected numbers. Such features cannot be practically performed in the human mind, as the features require multiple steps of calculations and data manipulation that, except in its most simplistic form, cannot be conceivably performed in the human mind or with pencil and paper given. For example, the variable returns table is generated and displayed in real-time during the event based on the real time updates to the selected numbers and drawn numbers. See e.g., Specification at [0073]-[0074]. It is not feasible for a human to process the live event data and calculate return odds and generate a variable returns table in real time. Additionally, the claimed features recite an additional step of determining "a reward amount by conducting a probabilistic analysis based on the at least one rewarding number and a variable returns table." Similarly the additional step requires a probabilistic analysis that may not be feasible in the human mind. “ (Remarks page 10). The Examiner points out that the rejection above has identified the limitation newly introduced by the Applicant and an abstract idea that is drawn at least to the Abstract groupings of Mathematical concepts and Certain methods of Organizing Human Activity. Thus, the Examiner is not persuaded by the Applicant’s arguments.
Regarding claims 1 and 23, the Applicant argues “The recited features describe specific components and structure of the GUI that facilitate gameplay functionality directly related to the GUI structure. For example, the recited GUI includes features configured to display in real time, "a graphical highlight of at least one number of the array corresponding to the at least one selected number; a graphical icon overlaid on at least one number of the array corresponding to the at least one drawn number; and a graphical indication of the real-time progression of the event." Further, 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. For example, the arrangement of the specific GUI components represents a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of GUI elements specific to the claimed system. For at least the reasons above, claim 23 claims patent eligible subject matter.” (Remarks page 11). The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claims are merely drawn to a generic GUI display which is made clear by paragraph 0091 and 0099 which state respectively:
[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.
[0099] Specifically, the cloud computing system 1500 includes at least one client computer 1501, such as computer system 1400. Client computer 1501 may be any device through the use of which a distributed computing environment may be accessed to perform the methods disclosed herein, for example, a traditional computer, portable computer, mobile phone, personal digital assistant, tablet to name a few. The client computer 1501 includes memory such as random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), mass storage device, or any combination thereof. The memory functions as a computer usable storage medium, otherwise referred to as a computer readable storage medium, to store and/or access computer software and/or instructions.
As can be clearly seen from the above excerpts from the Applicants specification, the GUI display can be one of many generic computing devices and displays which can be used to display data such as GUI elements as claimed. The Applicant further fails to disclose or provide support from the instant application any improvement to the operation of a computing device or provide any support in discussing a technological problem or a technical solution to that problem. 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
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.
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 5/20/2026
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights