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 .
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-20 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 1 recites a sport betting system that mitigates risk to a sportsbook operator, the sport betting system comprising:
a first client device that displays a first user interface that receives a first wager amount associated with a sportsbook outcome and requests a blind bet binary outcome;
wherein the first user interface is absent a first user-selected binary outcome associated with a sportsbook outcome;
a second client device that displays a second user interface that receives a second wager amount and a second user-selected binary outcome associated with the sportsbook outcome;
a sportsbook network component including a blind sport betting module;
the sportsbook network component communicatively coupled to the first client device and the second client device, wherein the sportsbook network component receives the first wager amount, the request for the blind bet binary outcome, the second wager amount, and the second user-selected binary outcome associated with the second wager amount;
the blind sport betting module determines a potential sportsbook loss corresponding to the second wager amount and a second user-selected predicted outcome;
the blind sport betting module mitigates the potential sportsbook loss by determining the blind bet binary outcome that is in binary opposition to the second user-selected binary outcome; and
the blind sport betting module communicates the blind bet binary outcome to the first client device.
Claim 8 recites a sport betting system that mitigates risk to a sportsbook operator, the sport betting system comprising:
a first client device that displays a first user interface that receives a first wager amount associated with a sportsbook outcome and requests a blind bet binary outcome before a resulting sportsbook outcome;
a second client device that displays a second user interface that receives a second wager amount and a second user-selected binary outcome associated with the sportsbook outcome before the resulting sportsbook outcome;
a sportsbook network component including a blind sport betting module;
the sportsbook network component communicatively coupled to the first client device and the second client device, wherein the sportsbook network component receives the first wager amount, the request for the blind bet binary outcome, the second wager amount, and the second user-selected binary outcome associated with the second wager amount;
the blind sport betting module determines a potential sportsbook loss corresponding to the second wager amount and the second user-selected predicted outcome;
the blind sport betting module mitigates the potential sportsbook loss by determining the blind bet binary outcome that is in binary opposition to the second user-selected binary outcome; and
the blind sport betting module communicates the blind bet binary outcome to the first client device before the resulting sportsbook outcome.
Claim 15 recites a sports betting system comprising:
a sports betting liability management system;
two or more bettor user interfaces communicatively coupled to the sports betting liability management system; and
a blind sports betting module configured to obtain liability offsets from the sports betting liability management system and configuring betting opportunities contra said liability offsets in whole or in part and present betting opportunities by and through the bettor interfaces for possible selection by the bettors.
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 a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of a messaging application that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping.
The claim limitations (as underlined) recite that a gaming application is initiated and a communication interface with a player is received. The steps of playing a wagering game and managing a wagering game 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 1-20 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 1-20 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 a game. As indicated in Applicant’s specification, the user device is a general purpose computer. Although not positively claimed as part of the claimed system, the claim indicates that that system is connected to a 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 to transmit and storing (retrieving and providing steps, identify and display information (event information, location, selection options, prizes).
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. 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 Wexler et al (US 2022/0005321) in view of Schneider et al (US 2012/0256377).
Regarding claims 1, 6-8, 13-17, 19, and 20: Wexler et al discloses a sport betting system that mitigates risk to a sportsbook operator (see paragraph [0039], showing platform for a sportsbook (referred interchangeably as the “house”) and a sportsbook operator (referred to interchangeably as the “operator”) to ensure that the house and the operator have the means by which to accept player prop bets and player prop parlays, while mitigating the aforementioned risks of inter-correlation and related contingencies that would otherwise make the player prop bets and parlays too high risk or unfavorable to be accepted by the house), the sport betting system comprising: a first client device that displays a first user interface that receives a first wager amount associated with a sportsbook outcome and requests a blind bet binary outcome (see paragraphs [0026]-[0030], [0123], [0196], [0204], [0219]. [0224], [0294], showing a single wager made by a bettor, a plurality of bets combined into one, a type of bet where a wager on an individual player or specific event is made instead of a team or a plurality of events, a place where a bettor can place at least one wager on various sports, a submission of a wager, bet, or parlay made to the Sportsbook, a chance of a particular outcome for a future event, interdependence between a plurality of factors. In other words, the probability of two or more events happening concurrently above what the probability of independent events happening concurrently would be. A measurement of correlation which may be a number between 1 and −1. A number close to 1 may mean two factors are positively correlated—they may rise or fall together and at a similar magnitude); wherein the first user interface is absent a first user-selected binary outcome associated with a sportsbook outcome (see paragraphs [0186], [0225], showing decision module 113 may be employed by the sportsbook to systematically accept or decline bets and/or parlays offered for acceptance to a sportsbook operator. In such embodiments, control system 110 may be operative to control various aspects of a game through interface system 120); a second client device that displays a second user interface that receives a second wager amount and a second user-selected binary outcome associated with the sportsbook outcome (see paragraph [0026]-[0030], [0123], [0196], [0204], [0219]. [0224], [0294], showing a single wager made by a bettor, a plurality of bets combined into one, a type of bet where a wager on an individual player or specific event is made instead of a team or a plurality of events, a place where a bettor can place at least one wager on various sports, a submission of a wager, bet, or parlay made to the Sportsbook, a chance of a particular outcome for a future event, interdependence between a plurality of factors. In other words, the probability of two or more events happening concurrently above what the probability of independent events happening concurrently would be. A measurement of correlation which may be a number between 1 and −1. A number close to 1 may mean two factors are positively correlated—they may rise or fall together and at a similar magnitude); the sportsbook network component communicatively coupled to the first client device and the second client device, wherein the sportsbook network component receives the first wager amount, the request for bet binary outcome, the second wager amount, and the second user-selected binary outcome associated with the second wager amount (see paragraph [0026]-[0030], [0123], [0196], [0204], [0219]. [0224], [0294], showing a single wager made by a bettor, a plurality of bets combined into one, a type of bet where a wager on an individual player or specific event is made instead of a team or a plurality of events, a place where a bettor can place at least one wager on various sports, a submission of a wager, bet, or parlay made to the Sportsbook, a chance of a particular outcome for a future event, interdependence between a plurality of factors. In other words, the probability of two or more events happening concurrently above what the probability of independent events happening concurrently would be. A measurement of correlation which may be a number between 1 and −1. A number close to 1 may mean two factors are positively correlated—they may rise or fall together and at a similar magnitude); the sport betting module determines a potential sportsbook loss corresponding to the second wager amount and a second user-selected predicted outcome (see paragraph [0039], showing platform for a sportsbook (referred interchangeably as the “house”) and a sportsbook operator (referred to interchangeably as the “operator”) to ensure that the house and the operator have the means by which to accept player prop bets and player prop parlays, while mitigating the aforementioned risks of inter-correlation and related contingencies that would otherwise make the player prop bets and parlays too high risk or unfavorable to be accepted by the house); the sport betting module mitigates the potential sportsbook loss by determining the bet binary outcome that is in binary opposition to the second user-selected binary outcome (see paragraph [0039], [0042], [0540], showing platform for a sportsbook (referred interchangeably as the “house”) and a sportsbook operator (referred to interchangeably as the “operator”) to ensure that the house and the operator have the means by which to accept player prop bets and player prop parlays, while mitigating the aforementioned risks of inter-correlation and related contingencies that would otherwise make the player prop bets and parlays too high risk or unfavorable to be accepted by the house); and the sport betting module communicates the bet binary outcome to the first client device (see paragraph [0039], [0042], [0540], showing platform for a sportsbook (referred interchangeably as the “house”) and a sportsbook operator (referred to interchangeably as the “operator”) to ensure that the house and the operator have the means by which to accept player prop bets and player prop parlays, while mitigating the aforementioned risks of inter-correlation and related contingencies that would otherwise make the player prop bets and parlays too high risk or unfavorable to be accepted by the house).
In an analogous invention, Schneider et al teaches a sportsbook network component including a blind sport betting module (see paragraph [0059], showing in many of the most popular forms of poker, some of the players are required to post blind bets (or blinds) before the cards are dealt. In the primary games, there are typically rules in place as to when a new player is permitted to join an existing game, and how much money, if any, it will cost him to join if he does so in an advantageous position with respect to the blinds).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify Wexler et al’s sportsbook as taught by Schneider et al’s blind sport betting for the purpose of providing the gamers with the blind betting where the player is forced to place blind bet and thereby ensuring there is money in the pot during the game. This yields the expected result of ensuring there is money in the pot and thereby increasing the satisfaction and enjoyment of the wagering game.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 18: Wexler et al discloses further comprising a plurality of standard client devices, in which each standard client device includes a user interface that receives a wager amount and a user-selected binary outcome for the sportsbook outcome (see paragraphs [0026]-[0030], [0123], [0196], [0204], [0219]. [0224], [0294], showing a single wager made by a bettor, a plurality of bets combined into one, a type of bet where a wager on an individual player or specific event is made instead of a team or a plurality of events, a place where a bettor can place at least one wager on various sports, a submission of a wager, bet, or parlay made to the Sportsbook, a chance of a particular outcome for a future event, interdependence between a plurality of factors. In other words, the probability of two or more events happening concurrently above what the probability of independent events happening concurrently would be. A measurement of correlation which may be a number between 1 and −1. A number close to 1 may mean two factors are positively correlated—they may rise or fall together and at a similar magnitude); wherein the sport betting module determines the potential sportsbook loss for the sportsbook outcome by aggregating the wager amounts for the user-selected binary outcomes (see paragraph [0039], [0042], [0540], showing platform for a sportsbook (referred interchangeably as the “house”) and a sportsbook operator (referred to interchangeably as the “operator”) to ensure that the house and the operator have the means by which to accept player prop bets and player prop parlays, while mitigating the aforementioned risks of inter-correlation and related contingencies that would otherwise make the player prop bets and parlays too high risk or unfavorable to be accepted by the house).
Regarding claims 3 and 10: Wexler et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed.
In an analogous invention, Schneider et al teaches further comprising a plurality of blind bet client devices, in which each blind bet client device receives a wager amount and a blind bet binary outcome from the blind sport betting module (see paragraph [0059], showing in many of the most popular forms of poker, some of the players are required to post blind bets (or blinds) before the cards are dealt. In the primary games, there are typically rules in place as to when a new player is permitted to join an existing game, and how much money, if any, it will cost him to join if he does so in an advantageous position with respect to the blinds).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify Wexler et al’s sportsbook as taught by Schneider et al’s blind sport betting for the purpose of providing the gamers with the blind betting where the player is forced to place blind bet and thereby ensuring there is money in the pot during the game. This yields the expected result of ensuring there is money in the pot and thereby increasing the satisfaction and enjoyment of the wagering game.
Regarding claims 4 and 11: Wexler et al discloses wherein the sportsbook outcome includes a final game outcome (see paragraph [0032], showing a chance of a particular outcome for a future event).
Regarding claims 5 and 12: Wexler et al discloses wherein the sportsbook outcome includes at least one prop bet outcome (see paragraph [0032], showing a chance of a particular outcome for a future event).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Black discloses system and method for live sports betting; Miller et al discloses system and method for generating and displaying a horse racing form for use with a virtual horse race.
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 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 at (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 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.
/ADETOKUNBO O TORIMIRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715