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 1-22 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.
The claims are directed to finding and betting on events (claimed as markets) (mathematical concepts, mental processes, and organizing methods of human activity) involving:
a math model market selection system (mathematical concepts);
receiving a game identifier and an initial represented wager amount (fundamental economic practice);
determining a math model that corresponds to the game identifier (mathematical concepts);
determining a math model definition associated with the math model (mathematical relationships);
determining a math model definition associated with the math model (mathematical relationships);
requesting open markets; and receiving suitable open markets;
receiving, at a bet results system, results of the plurality of selections from the at least one sportsbook server (fundamental economic practice); and
sending an outcome based on the results of the plurality of selections
Claims 1 and 12 do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The claim does not improve the functioning of the computer itself or another technology; rather, it uses the computer components as tools to implement the abstract idea of finding and betting on events.
No particular machine beyond generic components. Claims recite “server” and sportsbook server”; claim 12 recite “processor” and “memory”; yet, these are generic computing elements. See MPEP 2106.05(b), (f).
The additional elements (electronic game machine) are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment and do not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claims do not recite an inventive concept (“significantly more”) beyond the abstract ideas.
Generic computer components and environments (servers, processor, memory, and electronic gaming machine) performing data receiving, selecting, and sending are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities in the field of computer gambling.
Under Berkheimer v. HP, 881 F.3d 1360, absent evidence in the record that any claimed element or arrangement is not WURC, it is proper to treat generic servers, processors, and memories as conventional. The claims do not recite non-conventional computer functionality or architecture.
No specific algorithm, data structure, or hardware improvement is claimed that would transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, claims 1-22 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are directed to judicial exceptions—mathematical concepts, mental process, and organizing methods of human activity —and do not integrate those exceptions into a practical application. The additional elements, viewed individually and in combination, amount to no more than the abstract idea of finding and betting on events, implemented on a generic computer, and therefore do not add “significantly more.”
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 1-8 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20170372561 to Aronson et al (Aronson) in view of US Pub. 20150170467 to Shore et al (Shore).
Claims 1 and 12. Aronson discloses a method of operating a gaming server, comprising:
(as required by claim 12) at least one processor; and
(as required by claim 12) at least one memory that stores computer executable instructions, wherein, when the computer executable instructions are executed by the at least one processor,
receiving, at a math model market selection system, a game identifier and an initial represented wager amount from an electronic game machine (Fig. 1, elements 104 and 108, and ¶¶31, 33, 79);
determining, using the math model market selection system, a math model (¶¶31 and 69-74 “math models”) that corresponds to the game identifier;
determining, using the math model market selection system, a math model definition (¶¶69, 96, 102) associated with the math model;
requesting, from a resolvable market selection system, open markets (¶¶38-39);
receiving, from the resolvable market selection system, suitable open markets that are predicted to resolve within a threshold period of time (¶¶36, 38-39);
selecting, using the math model market selection system, a plurality of markets from the suitable open markets (¶¶36, 38-39, 87) that match at least one parameter in the math model definition for the math model (¶¶69-74, 81, 96, 98, 102, 105, 169);
determining, using the math model market selection system, a plurality of selections for the plurality of markets (¶¶16, 130-134);
sending, to a bet placement system, the plurality of selections for the plurality of markets (¶¶38-39, 86);
transmitting, to at least one server (¶¶30, 32, 99 “servers”), the plurality of selections for the plurality of markets (¶¶38-39, 86, 87);
receiving, at the bet placement system, confirmation of a status (¶¶55-56, 80, 86, 168) of at least one of the plurality of selections from the at least one server;
receiving, at a bet results system, results of the plurality of selections from the at least one server (¶¶84, 88); and
sending, to the electronic game machine, an outcome based on the results of the plurality of selections (¶¶44-45, 74, 79, 81).
However, Aronson fails to explicitly disclose a sportsbook server.
Shore teaches a sportsbook server (¶¶19, 66 “server for brokering wagers on micro-events”). The wagering system of Aronson would have motivation to use the teachings of Shore in order to provide additional events for wager which would expand the capabilities and betting options in hopes to entice people to bet even more money on various events.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wagering system of Aronson with the teachings of Shore in order to provide additional events for wager which would expand the capabilities and betting options in hopes to entice people to bet even more money on various events.
Claims 2 and 13. Aronson discloses wherein open markets are associated with at least one competition (¶¶37-38).
Claims 3 and 14. Aronson in view of Shore teaches further comprising determining a plurality of values of bets to place for the plurality of selections (see Shore Fig. 6, and ¶86).
Claims 4 and 15. Aronson in view of Shore teaches wherein a sum of the plurality of values of the bets to place for the plurality of selections (see Shore Fig. 6, and ¶86, 93) is the value of the initial represented wager (see Aronson ¶¶44, 46).
Claims 5 and 16. Aronson in view of Shore teaches wherein at least two of the plurality of values of bets to place for the plurality of selections are different (see Shore Fig. 6, and ¶86).
Claims 6 and 17. Aronson in view of Shore teaches wherein at least two of the plurality of values of bets to place for the plurality of selections are equal (see Shore Fig. 6, and ¶86).
Claims 7 and 18. Aronson in view of Shore teaches wherein an aggregate value of winning of the bets (see Shore Fig. 6, and ¶¶17, 28) for the plurality of selections results in a payout that matches another parameter in the math model definition for the math model (see Aronson ¶¶72-74).
Claims 8 and 19. Aronson discloses wherein open markets are associated with a plurality of different competitions (¶¶37-38).
Claims 9-11 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20170372561 to Aronson et al (Aronson) in view of US Pub. 20150170467 to Shore et al (Shore) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of US Pat. 11908281 to Scott.
Claims 9 and 20. Aronson fails to explicitly discloses a rejection of at least one of the plurality of selections.
Scott teaches a rejection of at least one of the plurality of selections (Fig. 5, elements 156-158, and col. 10, 28-37, “Once the bettor places the bet, the sportsbook will verify and approve or reject the bet”). The wagering system of Aronson in view of Shore would have motivation to use the teachings of Scott in order to stop invalid wagers from being placed by bettors while at the same time providing the bettors the opportunity to make changes to a respective rejected bet.
It would have been further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wagering system of Aronson in view of Shore with the teachings of Scott in order to stop invalid wagers from being placed by bettors while at the same time providing the bettors the opportunity to make changes to a respective rejected bet.
Claims 10 and 21. Aronson in view of Scott teaches further comprising determining that a portion of the outcome is a bet value associated with the rejected at least one of the plurality of selections (see Scott col. 9 line 61 to col. 10 line 29 “removal option”, and “recalculation of the Max Win payouts”).
Claims 11 and 22. Aronson in view of Shore and Scott teaches further comprising:
requesting, from a resolvable market selection system, additional open markets;
receiving, from the resolvable market selection system, suitable additional open markets that are predicted to resolve within the threshold period of time;
selecting, using the math model market selection system, at least one additional market from the suitable additional open markets that match the at least one parameter in the math model definition for the math model (see Aronson ¶¶31 and 69-74);
determining, using the math model market selection system, an additional selection for the at least one additional market to replace the rejected at least one of the plurality of selections (see Scott Fig. 5, elements 156-158, and col. 9 line 61 to col. 10 line 29);
sending, to a bet placement system, the additional selection for the at least one additional market;
transmitting, to the at least one sportsbook server, the additional selection for the at least one additional market;
receiving, at the bet placement system, confirmation of placement of the additional selection for the at least one additional market from the at least one sportsbook server;
receiving, at a bet results system, results of the additional selection for the at least one additional market from the at least one sportsbook server; and
adding the result of the additional selection for the at least one additional market to the outcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAMON J PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/DAMON J PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715