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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant filed an amendment on June 26, 2025. Claims 1-20 were pending in the Application. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-11, and 16-20 are amended. No new claims have been added. No claims have been canceled. Claims 1, 10, and 19 are the independent claims, the remaining claims depend on claims 1, 10, and 19. Thus, claims 1-20 are currently pending. After careful and full consideration of Applicant arguments and amendments, the Examiner finds them to be moot and/or not persuasive.
Response to Arguments
In the context of 35 U.S.C. §101, Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection. Applicant is of the opinion that the claims are statutory and respectfully asserts that “the claims are directed to “verifying a computing device’s stated location when conducting a transaction”, and not as asserted in the Office Action as being directed to “conducting transactions based on location”, which is incorrect and a misleading interpretation of what the claims are directed to; when properly considering the subject matter of the claims, the Subject Matter Eligibility test may be streamlined, as the eligibility of the claims is self-evident (MPEP § 2106.06); verifying a computer’s stated location in the manner claimed is an improvement in technology; the problem being solved by the invention is "How to prevent individuals from lying about their location when participating in online gambling”; the fact that many people try to do this, and systems configured according to the claims can help mitigate this problem, proves that the claims are directed to a practical application; claims as recited do more, however, than broadly claiming the idea of verifying a computing device's location; this ordered combination of steps (step 2B) are applied to improve an existing technology (online gambling) by improving the veracity of a computing device's stated location; when these steps are applied, the stated location of a user's phone, tablet, or other computing device can be verified with greater accuracy, thereby preventing unauthorized gambling from those outside authorized jurisdictions; all of these features, especially when viewed in combination, amount to significantly more than any judicial exception, and therefore the claims as amended comply with 35 U.S.C. § 101; and because the claims as a whole provide an improvement to the technological field of online gambling, and specifically verifying the stated location of a computing device, the claims are directed to a practical application, and the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 should be withdrawn.”
Initially, the Examiner would like to point out that the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106, which applies a two-step framework, earlier set out in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
Under the two-step framework, it must first be determined if "the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept." If the claims are determined to be directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, then the second step of the framework is applied to determine if "the elements of the claim ... contain an "inventive concept" sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 79).
With regard to step one of the Alice framework, we apply a "directed to" two-prong test: 1) evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and 2) if the claim recites a judicial exception, evaluate whether the claim "applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception," i.e., whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1. and II.B.2.).
The Specification, (PG Pub US 20240152922 A1, para 5), provides evidence as to what the claimed invention is directed. In this case, the specification, (‘922 A1, para 5), discloses that the invention relates to available transactions requiring location verification, and is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”, in prong one of step 2A. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
Claim 1 provides additional evidence, and recites the limitations “receiving, …, a plurality of available transactions …, wherein the plurality of available transactions require location verification; displaying, …, the plurality of available transactions; receiving, …, a selection of an available transaction within the plurality of available transactions, the available transaction offered …; performing, …, location verification …, resulting in a verified location, the location verification comprising: transmitting, …, a declared betting location …; transmitting, …, movement patterns … over a predefined period of time, … (1) reviews the declared betting location and the movement patterns for consistency, then (2) performs an Internet Protocol-based verification of a location …, resulting in a location approval; and receiving the location approval …; and initiating, after receiving the verified location and …, communications between the … and the …, the communications fulfilling the selection”, which represent the abstract idea of “transactions requiring location verification.” (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “a display”, “at least one processor”, “third-party computing systems”, “a third party computing system”, “a computing device”, and “an Internet Protocol-based verification”, which represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “transactions requiring location verification.”
With respect to “receiving the location approval from the third-party computer system”, the claim lacks technological details regarding how “receiving the location approval from the third-party computing system” is performed (MPEP §2106.05 (f)(1)), and as a result, the limitation is no more than receiving data, which contributes to the abstract idea of “transactions requiring location verification”, as it represents the utilization of computer functionality (e.g., send, receive, store) as part of performing an economic or other task (MPEP §2106.05 (f)(2)).
Examiner notes the basis of the rejection was, and is not as any mental process covering performance in the mind, but classified as an abstract idea, “transactions requiring location verification”, grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”.
With respect to the additional elements operating in a non-conventional and non-generic way and reflecting an improvement to a particular technological environment, the cited additional elements represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “transactions requiring location verification.” The claims are not directed to improving computers or related technologies, but improving the method for transactions requiring location verification. For potential improvement in an abstract idea “transactions requiring location verification”, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a transactions requiring location verification concept) is not an improvement in technology. (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)). Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Claim 10 also recites the abstract idea of “transactions requiring location verification”, as well as the additional elements of “a system”, “a display”, “at least one processor”, “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “third party computing systems”, “a third-party computing system”, “a computing device”, and “an Internet Protocol-based verification”, which represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “transactions requiring location verification”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “transactions requiring location verification” using computer technology (e.g., “at least one processor” and “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. (MPEP 2106.05 I A (f) & (h)). Therefore, claim 10 is non-statutory.
Claim 19 also recites the abstract idea of “transactions requiring location verification”, as well as the additional elements of “a display”, “at least one processor”, “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “third party computing systems”, “a third-party computing system”, “a computing device”, and “an Internet Protocol-based verification”, which represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “transactions requiring location verification”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “transactions requiring location verification” using computer technology (e.g., “a computing device” and “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. (MPEP 2106.05 I A (f) & (h)). Therefore, claim 19 is non-statutory.
Finally, Examiner notes the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106. And, based on this standard, the claims are non-statutory, and correctly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims as amended recite at least one feature not disclosed or adequately suggested by the cited combination of Dillon (U. S. Patent No. 11636737 B2) and Shore (U. S. Patent No. 11783679 B2). Specifically, independent claims 1, 10, and 19 recite, "performing, via at least one processor of the computing device, location verification of the computing device, resulting in a verified location, the location verification comprising: transmitting, to the third-party computer system from the computing device, a declared betting location of the computing device; transmitting, to the third-party computer system from the computing device, movement patterns for the computing device over a predefined period of time, wherein the third-party computer system (1) reviews the declared betting location and the movement patterns for consistency, then (2) performs an Internet Protocol-based verification of a location of the computing device, resulting in a location approval; and receiving the location approval from the third-party computer system."
The cited combination fails to disclose or adequately suggest such features, and therefore because the independent claims recite features neither disclosed nor adequately suggested by the cited combination, claims 1, 10, and 19 are patentable and in condition for allowance. The other claims are likewise patentable and in condition for allowance insofar as they depend from claims 1, 10, and 19, while reciting additional features.
Examiner finds the applicant arguments for the limitations "performing, via at least one processor of the computing device, location verification of the computing device, resulting in a verified location, the location verification comprising: transmitting, to the third-party computer system from the computing device, a declared betting location of the computing device”; “transmitting, to the third-party computer system from the computing device, movement patterns for the computing device over a predefined period of time, wherein the third-party computer system (1) reviews the declared betting location and the movement patterns for consistency, then (2) performs an Internet Protocol-based verification of a location of the computing device, resulting in a location approval”; and “receiving the location approval from the third-party computer system," moot in view of new grounds of rejection, and therefore, amended claim 1, as well as the amended claims 10 and 19, is not patentable. Amended claim 1, as well as amended claims 10 and 19, stands rejected under 35 U.S.C §103 in the analysis below, and is therefore, not patentable in view of Lutkin (US 20220092939 A1) now applying to the applicable amended sections for claim 1, as well as amended claims 10 and 19. Dependent claims 2-9, which depend from claim 1; dependent claims 11-18, which depend from claim 10; and dependent claim 20, which depends from claim 19, also stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Examiner maintains the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim Interpretation – No Patentable Weight
In regards to claim 1, the claim is directed to a method comprising “wherein the third-party computer system (1) reviews the declared betting location and …, then (2) performs in Internet Protocol-based verification …, resulting in a location approval; …”, which are directed to the limitations happening at the third-party computer system. The third-party computer system is not part of the system of claim 10, therefore, claim 1 does not have patentable weight. Additionally, similar language is recited in claims 10 and 19. (MPEP § 2103 I C).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-9 are directed to a “method”; claims 10-18 are directed to a “system”; and claims 19-20 are directed to a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”. Therefore, these claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 recites “transactions requiring location verification”, which is a form of commercial or legal interactions (i.e., organizing human activity), and therefore, an abstract idea. Specifically, claim 1 recites the method limitations “receiving, …, a plurality of available transactions …, wherein the plurality of available transactions require location verification; displaying, …, the plurality of available transactions; receiving, …, a selection of an available transaction within the plurality of available transactions, the available transaction offered …; performing, …, location verification …, resulting in a verified location, the location verification comprising: transmitting, …, a declared betting location …; transmitting, …, movement patterns … over a predefined period of time, … (1) reviews the declared betting location and the movement patterns for consistency, then (2) performs an Internet Protocol-based verification of a location …, resulting in a location approval; and receiving the location approval …; and initiating, after receiving the verified location and …, communications between the … and the …, the communications fulfilling the selection.” (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim such as “a display”, “at least one processor”, “third-party computing systems”, “a third party computing system”, “a computing device”, and “an Internet Protocol-based verification”, represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “transactions requiring location verification.”
With respect to “receiving the location approval from the third-party computer system”, the claim lacks technological details regarding how “receiving the location approval from the third-party computing system” is performed (MPEP §2106.05 (f)(1)), and as a result, the limitation is no more than receiving data, which contributes to the abstract idea of “transactions requiring location verification”, as it represents the utilization of computer functionality (e.g., send, receive, store) as part of performing an economic or other task (MPEP §2106.05 (f)(2)).
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describes the concept of “transactions requiring location verification” using computer technology (e.g., “a computing device” and “at least one processor”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. (MPEP 2106.05 I A (f) & (h)). Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Claim 10 also recites the abstract idea of “transactions requiring location verification”, as well as the additional elements of “a system”, “a display”, “at least one processor”, “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “third party computing systems”, “a third-party computing system”, “a computing device”, and “an Internet Protocol-based verification”, which represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “transactions requiring location verification”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “transactions requiring location verification” using computer technology (e.g., “at least one processor” and “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. (MPEP 2106.05 I A (f) & (h)). Therefore, claim 10 is non-statutory.
Claim 19 also recites the abstract idea of “transactions requiring location verification”, as well as the additional elements of “a display”, “at least one processor”, “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “third party computing systems”, “a third-party computing system”, “a computing device”, and “an Internet Protocol-based verification”, which represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “transactions requiring location verification”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “transactions requiring location verification” using computer technology (e.g., “a third-party computing system” and “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. (MPEP 2106.05 I A (f) & (h)). Therefore, claim 19 is non-statutory.
Dependent claims 2, 11, and 20 further describe the abstract idea of “transactions requiring location verification”. Specifically, it recites “… transmitting, …, a request to log a user into the ...; receiving, …, a login form; transmitting, …, a completed login form; and receiving, …, a token, wherein the token is required for transactions associated with the user.” The additional elements of “the computing device”, “the third-party computing system”, and “an API (Application Programming Interface)”, do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. And, as they do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve the functioning of the computer or computer technology.
Dependent claims 3 and 12 further describe the abstract idea of “transactions requiring location verification”. Specifically, it recites “… wherein account verification is required prior to the displaying of the plurality of available transactions.”
Dependent claims 4 and 13 further describe the abstract idea of “transactions requiring location verification”. Specifically, it recites “… wherein account verification is required prior to the performing of the location verification.”
Dependent claims 5 and 14 further describe the abstract idea of “transactions requiring location verification”. Specifically, it recites “… wherein the performing of the location verification occurs prior to the receiving of the plurality of available transactions.”
Dependent claims 6 and 15 further describe the abstract idea of “transactions requiring location verification”. Specifically, it recites “… wherein the location verification comprises use of a location verification algorithm executed by ...” The additional element of “the computing device” does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve the functioning of the computer or computer technology.
Dependent claims 7 and 16 further describe the abstract idea of “transactions requiring location verification”. Specifically, it recites “… wherein the location verification comprises use of a third-party verification provider.”
Dependent claims 8 and 17 further describe the abstract idea of “transactions requiring location verification”. Specifically, it recites “… wherein the plurality of available transactions are available wagers, and the … are … betting platforms.” The additional elements of “the third-party computing systems” and “online betting platforms” do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. And, as they do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve the functioning of the computer or computer technology.
Dependent claims 9 and 18 further describe the abstract idea of “transactions requiring location verification”. Specifically, it recites “… transmitting, … to a third-party authorized provider, a request to log a user into the ...; receiving, …, a login form; transmitting, … to the third-party authorization provider, a completed login form; and receiving, … from the third-party authorization provider, a token authorizing transactions with the … on behalf of the user, wherein the token is required for transactions associated with the user.” The additional elements of “the computing device”, “the third-party computing system”, and “an API (Application Programming Interface)”, do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. And, as they do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve the functioning of the computer or computer technology.
Hence, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U. S. 1. 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dillon et al (U. S. Patent No. 11636737 B2), herein referred to as Dillon, in view of Shore et al (U. S. Patent No. 11783679 B2), herein referred to as Shore, and in further view of Lutkin (U. S. Patent Application No. 20220092939 A1), herein referred to as Lutkin.
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 19, Dillon specifically discloses a method comprising: receiving, at a computing device (FIG. 1, items 106, 110; C/L 10/45-46), a plurality of available transactions from third party computing systems, wherein the plurality of available transactions require location verification (FIG. 3, item 308; C/L 7/24-37, 41-49; C/L 14/28-34; C/L 16/ 24-34); …
performing, via at least one processor of the computing device (FIG. 1, items 106, 110; C/L 10/45-46), location verification of the computing device, resulting in a verified location (C/L 16/24-34, 38-67; C/L 17/1-12; C/L 18/34-59), the location verification comprising: …
initiating, after receiving the verified location and via the at least one processor, communications between the computing device (FIG. 1, items 106, 110; C/L 10/45-46) and the third-party computing system (FIG. 1, items 100, 102; C/L 10/38-46), the communications fulfilling the selection (FIG. 3, 21, 28, items 310, 2100, 2800; C/L 14/47-15/1-4).
Dillon does not specifically disclose, however, Shore discloses displaying, via a display of the computing device (FIG. 6, items 600, 610; C/L 16/24-36), the plurality of available transactions (FIG. 6, 7, items 615, 617, 708, 710; C/L 16/ 26-28; C/L 16, 67-17/1-12);
receiving, at the computing device (FIG. 6, items 600, 610; C/L 16/24-36), a selection of an available transaction within the plurality of available transactions, the available transaction offered by a third party computing system within the third-party computing systems (FIG. 7, items 712, 714; C/L 17/9-19); …
With respect to claim 10, Shore further discloses a system (FIG. 1, item 100; C/L 9/30-49; C/L 9/15-29; C/L 35/44-59) comprising: a display (FIG. 6, items 600, 610; C/L 16/24-36);
at least one processor (FIG. 1, item 138; C/L 9/30-52); and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor (C/L 8/18-36; C/L 9/15-29; C/L 35/44-59) to perform operations comprising: …
With respect to claim 19, Shore further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored which, when executed by at least one processor, cause at least one processor (C/L 8/18-36; C/L 9/15-29; C/L 35/44-59) to perform operations comprising: …
Shore discloses location-based wagering via remote devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include location-based wagering via remote devices, as in Shore, to improve and/or enhance the technology for systems and methods for facilitating betting in a game, as in Dillon, because it would amount to combining elements that in the combination would perform the same function as they functioned separately. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine the references to provide a location based wagering method and system in determining, based on a mobile device location, if the online wagering is allowed in the jurisdiction, along with prescribed limitations of use in that jurisdiction. Wagering options are then presented via the mobile device, which conform to the laws and/or regulations of the jurisdiction.
Dillon and Shore do not specifically disclose, however, Lutkin discloses transmitting, to the third-party computer system (FIG. 4A, 4B, item C150; paras 248-249) from the computing device (FIG. 4A, 4B, 5, items C120, C130; paras 245-246, 253), a declared betting location of the computing device (FIG. 27; paras 375, 379-380, 384-388, 390, 772);
transmitting, to the third-party computer system (FIG. 4A, 4B, item C150; paras 248-249) from the computing device (FIG. 4A, 4B, 5, items C120, C130; paras 245-246, 253), movement patterns for the computing device over a predefined period of time (paras 355, 381), wherein the third-party computer system (1) reviews the declared betting location and the movement patterns for consistency (paras 392, 395, 398), then (2) performs an Internet Protocol-based verification of a location of the computing device, resulting in a location approval (paras 259, 261, 316, 592); and
receiving the location approval (paras 376, 378, 382, 384, 391) from the third-party computer system (FIG. 4A, 4B, item C150; paras 248-249); and …
Lutkin discloses game of chance systems and methods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include game of chance systems and methods, as in Lutkin; and to include location-based wagering via remote devices, as in Shore, to improve and/or enhance the technology for systems and methods for facilitating betting in a game, as in Dillon, because it would amount to combining elements that in the combination would perform the same function as they functioned separately. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine the references to provide a location verification or determination feature, which being operable permits or disallows gaming from a remote location, depending upon whether or not the location meets one or more criteria, such as the location being within a pre-defined area in which gaming is permitted by law.
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 20, Dillon, Shore, and Lutkin disclose all the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 19. Dillon further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
transmitting, from the computing device (FIG. 1, items 106, 110; C/L 10/45-46) to the third-party computing system (FIG. 1, items 100, 102; C/L 10/38-46), a request to log a user into the third-party computing system (FIG. 14, item 1400; C/L 26/4-6);
receiving, at the computing device (FIG. 1, items 106, 110; C/L 10/45-46) via an API (Application Programming Interface) (FIG. 14, item 1400; C/L 24/16-21; 25/37-40; 26/4-6) associated with the third-party computing system, a login form FIG. 15, item 1500; C/L 26/7-9);
transmitting, from the computing device (FIG. 1, items 106, 110; C/L 10/45-46) to the third-party computing system, a completed login form (FIG. 35, item 3500; C/L 27/7-9); and
receiving, at the computing device (FIG. 1, items 106, 110; C/L 10/45-46) from the third-party computing system, a token, wherein the token is required for transactions associated with the user (FIG. 19, item 1900; C/L 26/26-28).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Dillon, Shore, and Lutkin disclose all the limitations of claims 1-2 and 10-11. Dillon further discloses the method of claim 2, wherein account verification is required prior to (FIG. 16, item 1600; C/L 26/10-19) the displaying of the plurality of available transactions (FIG. 19, item 1900; C/L 26/26-28).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Dillon, Shore, and Lutkin disclose all the limitations of claims 1-2 and 10-11. Dillon further discloses the method of claim 2, wherein account verification is required prior to the performing of the location verification (FIG. 16, item 1600; C/L 16/24-34, 38-17/12; C/L 18/34-59; C/L 26/10-19).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Dillon, Shore, and Lutkin disclose all the limitations of claims 1-2 and 10-11. Dillon further discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the performing of the location verification occurs prior to the receiving of the plurality of available transactions (FIG. 16, item 1600; C/L 16/24-34, 38-17/12; C/L 18/34-59; C/L 26/10-19).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Dillon, Shore, and Lutkin disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 10. Dillon further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the location verification comprises use of a location verification algorithm executed by the computing device (FIG. 1, items 106, 110; C/L 10/45-46; C/L 16/38-17/12).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Dillon, Shore, and Lutkin disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 10. Dillon further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the location verification comprises use of a third-party location verification provider (C/L16/38-62).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Dillon, Shore, and Lutkin disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 10. Dillon further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of available transactions are available wagers (FIG. 19, 21, 28, 29, items 1900, 2100, 2800, 2900; C/L 26/26-28; C/L 26/32-34; C/L 26/53-58), and the third-party computing systems are online betting platforms (FIG. 1, items 100, 102; C/L 10/38-44).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Dillon, Shore, and Lutkin disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 10. Dillon further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
transmitting, from the computing device (FIG. 1, items 106, 110; C/L 10/45-46) to a third-party authorization provider (FIG. 1, items 100, 102; C/L 10/38-46), a request to log a user into the third-party computing system (FIG. 14, item 1400; C/L 26/4-6);
receiving, at the computing device (FIG. 1, items 106, 110; C/L 10/ 45-46) via an API (Application Programming Interface) (FIG. 14, item 1400; C/L 24/16-21; 25/37-40; 26/4-6) associated with the third-party authorization provider (FIG. 1, items 100, 102; C/L 10/38-46), a login form (FIG. 15, item 1500; C/L 26/7-9);
transmitting, from the computing device (FIG. 1, items 106, 110; C/L 10/45-46) to the third-party authorization provider (FIG. 1, items 100, 102; C/L 10/38-46), a completed login form (FIG. 35, item 3500; C/L 27/7-9); and
receiving, at the computing device (FIG. 1, items 106, 110; C/L 10/45-46) from the third-party authorization provider (FIG. 1, items 100, 102; C/L 10/38-46), a token authorizing transactions with the third-party computing system on behalf of the user (FIG. 19, item 1900; C/L 26/26-28).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mattice et al (U. S. Patent No. 8616984 B2) – Intelligent Player Tracking Card And Wagering Token Tracking Techniques
Mattice discloses wireless communications among devices in a wager-based gaming environment, including between an RFID-enabled player tracking card (or "smart card") and an electronic wagering token. Wireless communications between the smart card and a plurality of electronic wagering tokens may be periodically initiated. Electronic wagering tokens which are detected as being within possession or control of a patron in possession of the smart card may be tracked during various events. Electronic wagering tokens which are within possession or control of the patron of the may be detected and identified. Token-owner association information which includes information relating to an ownership association between the patron and the electronic wagering token may be generated.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN CHISM whose telephone number is (571) 272-5915. The examiner can normally be reached during 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM Monday – Thursday, EST.
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, Calvin L. Hewitt II can be reached (571) 272-6709. 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.
/STEVEN R CHISM/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692