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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 03/24/2026. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below.
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground of rejection set forth herein; therefore, this action is made Final.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn in view of amendments, see detailed analysis below.
Claims 1-20 are now pending.
AIA Notice
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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:
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 US 2020/0327771 A1 to Restivo in view of US 2005/0125280 A1 to Carr.
Regarding Claim 1, and similarly recited Claims 8 and 15, (Currently Amended) Restivo discloses a system comprising:
one or more processors (figs. 1-4 depicts processor 102, para. [0020]); and
a memory storing a plurality of instructions, which, when executed on the one or more processors (figs. 1-4 depicts memory 103, para. [0020]), causes the system to:
receive event object data indicative of bet placement transactions occurring within a software-based sportsbook platform, each bet placement transaction including a timestamp for a corresponding event occurring at a point in time (figs. 1-4, paras. [0033]-[0034], [0037], [0038]-[0043] discloses receiving betting information at a sportsbook as provided by the user),
for each bet placement transaction:
identify a plurality of characteristics associated with the bet placement transaction (figs. 1-4, paras. [0033]-[0034], [0037], [0038]-[0043] discloses performing data analytics on the betting information, such as the processor may use metadata 3081 from the betting information to detect different types of bets made by the user entity, win probabilities, etc.),
update persistent state data associated with each identified characteristic in an in-memory data store maintaining time-series data that represents a plurality of events that have occurred within the software-based sportsbook platform figs. 1-4, paras. [0033]-[0034], [0037], [0038]-[0043], [0046] discloses identifying different characteristics such as win probabilities for the different betting types, patterns for a betting type, etc.; providing the API request and downloading user bets from a sportsbook may be performed by the server on a recurring basis in a polling-based downloading system. That is, for a given user, server may poll the various sportsbooks with which the user has made bets in the past to see if there is any new betting information to download. Such recurrence may be periodic, at predetermined intervals of time (e.g., daily, weekly, etc.), or it may be in response to user prompting, or both; the server 101 may record the user's bets as they are placed and update the outcomes as they are determined, eliminating the need to download this information.), and
index the persistent state data associated with the plurality of characteristics in the in-memory data store, wherein the persistent state data is indexed as a time-series representation based on the point in time associated with the event and on the identified plurality of characteristics (figs. 1-4, paras. [0033]-[0034], [0037], [0038]-[0043] discloses data analysis may be applied to seek or identify trends, such as success rates, and recommendations may be provided regarding future betting. Success rates, which may be in the form of win probabilities, associated with particular types of bets and/or for all types of bets, may be provided), and
provide, to one or more data consumer devices, access to the time-series data trending activity via a plurality of application programming interface (API) functions (figs. 1-4, paras. [0033]-[0034], [0037], [0038]-[0043], [0046] discloses server 101 may then send 205, 308 a request for the user entity's betting information from the sportsbook 110 using the secure communications channel described above. According to an embodiment, the request is sent directly from server 101 to the one or more sportsbooks 110. According to an embodiment, the request may be performed using the secure communication channels, as described above, such as through an application programming interface (API) of sportsbook 110 which may be in the form of a JavaScript° Object Notation Web Token (JWT); providing the API request 205 and downloading user bets 206, 309 from a sportsbook 110 may be performed by the server 101 on a recurring basis in a polling-based downloading system. That is, for a given user, server 101 may poll the various sportsbooks 110 with which the user has made bets in the past to see if there is any new betting information to download. Such recurrence may be periodic, at predetermined intervals of time (e.g., daily, weekly, etc.), or it may be in response to user prompting, or both.).
However, Restivo does not explicitly disclose “perform aggregation operations on the persistent state data to identify trending activity within the software-based sportsbook platform”.
In a related invention, Carr discloses “perform aggregation operations on the persistent state data to identify trending activity within the software-based sportsbook platform” (paras. [0023], [0030], [0031], [0055], [0061] discloses aggregating/scoring to identify behavioral trends).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Restivo's sportsbook-trend analytics using Carr's aggregation engine in order to improve upon identifying trends for the bets placed and the betting analytics.
Regarding Claim 2, (Currently Amended) Restivo in view of Carr discloses the system of claim 1, wherein to provide, to the one or more data consumer devices, the access to the trending activity via the plurality of API functions comprises to:
receive, from one of the data consumer devices, a query for a time-series data subset of the persistent state time-series data, the query comprising one or more filtering parameters, wherein the subset indicates a trend in one of the identified characteristics based on the persistent state data;
apply the one or more filtering parameters to the persistent state data to obtain the subset; and
output the subset to the one of the data consumer devices.
3. (Currently Amended) Restivo in view of Carr discloses the system of claim 1, wherein to update the persistent state data associated with each identified characteristic comprises to increment a counter for each identified characteristic in the in-memory data store (Carr, paras. [0023], [0030], [0031], [0055], [0061] discloses aggregating/scoring to identify behavioral trends).
Regarding Claim 4, and similarly recited Claims . (Currently Amended) Restivo in view of Carr discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the software-based sportsbook platform comprises an online sportsbook platform and wherein the bet placement transaction corresponds to data corresponding to a bet placed by a client device on the online sportsbook platform.
Regarding Claim 5, and similarly recited Claim 12 and 18, (Currently Amended) Restivo in view of Carr discloses the system of claim 4, wherein to identify the plurality of characteristics comprises to identify one of at least a type of betting activity, a market and jurisdiction, or a betting outcome associated with the bet placement transaction data.
Regarding Claim 6, and similarly recited Claims 13 and 19, (Original) Restivo in view of Carr discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the plurality of instructions further causes the system to maintain, via a cache, an in-memory count of bets placed by market type for a given amount of time as a persisted state (Carr, paras. [0023], [0030], [0031], [0055], [0061] discloses aggregating/scoring to identify behavioral trends).
Regarding Claim 7, and similarly recited Claims 14 and 20, (Currently Amended) Restivo in view of Carr discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the plurality of instructions further causes the system to:
maintain, via a cache, a copy of a count of bets by event; and
identify, from the persistent state, which of the bets are trending based on in-memory aggregation operations (Carr, paras. [0023], [0030], [0031], [0055], [0061] discloses aggregating/scoring to identify behavioral trends).
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is withdrawn. Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 as amended recite a specific computer architecture — updating persistent state in an in-memory data store as time-series data, indexing the persistent state as a time-series representation, and performing aggregation operations on the persistent state to identify trending activity, with API access thereto. This recites an improvement to the functioning of a computer/database (MPEP 2106.05(a)) and integrates any recited abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Regarding Applicant's argument that Restivo fails to disclose performing aggregation operations on the persistent state data to identify trending activity and is silent regarding performing aggregation operations is persuasive as to anticipation; the § 102 rejection over Restivo is withdrawn and replaced by the § 103 rejection above as necessitated by the amendment.
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 SHAUNA-KAY HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/S.N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights