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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 1-19, 21 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 the abstract idea of mental processes and/ or certain methods 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 machine, process, and/or an article of manufacturer, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a – Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Claims 1-19, 21 recite a method/apparatus for:
receiving historical sports data;
iteratively simulating games, comparing simulated results to historical results, modifying the historical sports data itself when a difference exceeds a threshold, and re-simulating until the data is labeled “balanced sports data”;
using that balanced data in a scenario engine to generate probabilities/percentages, select a subset of events whose percentages fall below a desired threshold, and produce betting information (odds and selected events);
displaying a betting UI, receiving a user bet selection, and then displaying an updated UI with a success graphic and a media asset.
This is directed to the abstract idea of (1) mathematical concepts/algorithms (Monte Carlo-style simulation, statistical comparison of results, threshold-based data modification/calibration, and probability/percentage generation) and (2) methods of organizing human activity (facilitating sports betting/wagering by generating calibrated odds and offering selected betting events, followed by conventional post-bet confirmation and media display).
The iterative “balanced sports data” loop, while specific, is still a mathematical calibration algorithm applied to the field of sports betting.
Step 2a – Prong 2 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)
The additional elements do not integrate the exceptions into a practical application. These elements include a "simulation engine" and "scenario engine" for processing data; databases for receiving historical data; user interfaces for displaying betting options, receiving selections, and showing graphics/media assets; and servers for comprising the engines. These are generic computer components performing routine functions (data receipt, simulation, comparison, display). There is no evidence they improve computer functionality, such as through a specific data structure.
The UI and media assets merely link the idea to a technological environment (generic display/transmission), akin to automating preexisting betting systems without solving a technological problem. No meaningful limitations beyond field-of-use (sports betting).
The claims recite the abstract idea with instructions to "apply it" on generic hardware, without integration (e.g., no specific machine integral to the claim, no particular transformation of an article).
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of an electronic device, non-transitory memory, and/ or processors used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility (the use of a computer merely illustrates the environment in which the abstract idea is practiced). These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. Taking the physical elements individually and in combination, the computer-based components are silent in regards to clearly indicating how a computer aids the device, method, and medium, the extent to which a computer to the performance of the device. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the "inventive concept" necessary for patent-eligibility. "[I]f a patent's recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to 'implement]' an abstract idea 'on ... a computer,' ... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
The dependent claims do not add "significantly more" for at least the same reasons as directed to their respective independent claims, at least based on the position, as discussed above, that each of the dependent claims merely provides additional rules to further expand the abstract idea of the independent claims.
Consequently, consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Relevant Prior Art
US 2019/0236909 A1: Blayvas discloses a method comprising: receiving historical/event data related to a sport (sporting event details stored/processed by the server); generating betting information comprising odds and selected events by simulating outcomes and generating percentages/probabilities for events; selecting a subset of events (e.g., based on probabilities or criteria for offering bets); generating for display a user interface with an option to bet on an event; receiving a user selection of the bet; and in response, generating an updated user interface comprising a graphic indicating bet success and media (display updates, visual feedback on outcomes).
US 2009/0149233 A1: Strause discloses a method comprising: receiving, from at least one database, historical sports data related to a first sport; generating, by a simulation engine, simulated outcomes by simulating a plurality of events/games using the historical sports data; generating a plurality of percentages/probabilities for each event/outcome based on the plurality of simulated outcomes; generating betting information comprising a plurality of odds and a plurality of selected events; generating for display, by a first device, a user interface using the betting information, wherein the user interface comprises an option to bet on a first event; receiving, by the first device, a selection by a user of the option to bet on the first event; and in response to receiving the selection by the user, generating for display, by the first device, an updated user interface comprising a graphic/result indication based on the outcome and a first media asset comprising a portion of a simulation of the first event.
Neither Blayvas nor Strause disclose the precise balanced sports data generation step of iterative simulation of games, compare simulated results with historical results and if first difference exceeds a threshold, modify the historical sports data itself; re-simulate until second difference does not exceed threshold and identify modified data as balanced sports data.
Filing of New or Amended Claims
The examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the original disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. See Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263, 191 USPQ at 97 (“[T]he PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). However, when filing an amendment an applicant should show support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims. See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 (“Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”). Please see MPEP 2163 (II) 3. (b)
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SENG H LIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3301. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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, David L. Lewis can be reached at (571) 272-7673. 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.
/Seng H Lim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights