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
This office action is in response to amendments filed on 03/04/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-8 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Limitation “obtaining sensor data from one or more sensors at a live sporting event, wherein odds are generated in real time for a live sporting event based upon the sensor data” is not clearly supported by applicant’s disclosure. Examiner cannot find where odds are updated live based on sensor data but does find support in paragraph [0059] where wagers can be taken off the board based on events in the game. Taking a wager off the board would not be an update to odds nor is it clearly linked to sensors. Examiner can find sensors being used but it is unclear if the sensors are connected to determining what odds to present or are merely gathering data regarding events in the game. Clarification is requested.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-7 and 14-15 recites the limitation " a comparison between the activity history of each identified user and the first notification shows an increase in user engagement" in claim 1. The comparison steps occurs previous to this step and therefore it should be the comparison since the comparison is the same. Claims 3-7 and 14-15 are rejected for depending on claim 1 and not resolving the above issue.
Claim 1, 3-7 and 14-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Limitation "sending, for each user in a cohort" it is unclear if the cohort is the respective cohort included earlier in the claim or a new cohort. Based on the claim language examiner believes this is the respective cohort and should be referred to as the cohort to avoid confusion. Claims 3-7 and 14-15 are rejected for depending on claim 1 and not resolving the above issue.
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, 3-8 and 10-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mental step and commercial or legal interactions in the form of advertising or sales by providing incentives for customer behavior without significantly more. As per step 1 examiner recognizes that claims 1-7 are directed towards a method claim without sufficient hardware steps indicating the steps are performed by a machine. While a database is used in claim 1 it is generally recited to read on the user steps of accessing and reviewing information stored in the database and not machine elements performing the indicated steps. As per claims 8-13 examiner recognizes those steps are directed towards a system comprising hardware. As per step 2A the claim(s) recite(s) “sorting each user of a plurality of users stored in a user database into a respective cohort; sending, for each user in a cohort, a first notification of a plurality of notifications stored in a notification database; identifying which users of a plurality of users stored in the user database have been sent the first notification; comparing an activity history of each identified user with the first notification; determining a correlation between the first notification based on the activity history of each identified user, at least a time elapsed since the first notification was sent to a respective user, and activity of the respective user since the first notification was sent; retaining the first notification in the notification database when a comparison between the activity history of each identified user and the first notification shows an increase in user engagement; identifying, for each users of the plurality of users stored in the user database, whether user activity changes in response to the first notification of the plurality of notifications stored in the notification database; obtaining sensor data from one or more sensors at a live sporting event, wherein odds are generated in real time for a live sporting event based upon the sensor data and the at least one of the notifications comprise displays of the odds on a mobile device of each user, and, offering, to the user, a second notification of the plurality of notifications based on the activity of the user in response to the first notification.” as being directed towards a method of recording a player’s activity history in order to provide notifications to a player and then providing an notification accordingly based on a desired action occurring. Additional language includes additional steps regarding how to determine who to receive a notification, how to sort users, and further variables to consider for the calculation. Amended language includes a sensor setup for determining one or more odds at a live sporting event and to tie the notification to the determination. Amended dependent claim languages includes what type of sensors could be used. Examiner recognizes that while applicant is removing previous wagering language the disclosure does not clearly support notification as being separate from the incentive previously claimed. See originally filed claim 2 wherein a notification is an incentive. No other support appears in the original disclosure and therefore examiner will interpret the notification as an incentive going forward. Further the user history appears to be wagering history as disclosed by the disclosure and no further embodiments are known that are not tied to wagering games. See for example paragraph [0070] of the disclosure. Therefore the wagering game aspects do not appear to be removed even if the language is modified since no embodiments for those terms exist which are not tied to wagering. As per the mental steps see highlighted sections which includes various features of observing data in order to perform a calculation to determine if a rule should be applied. Specifically the step of observing a player’s history and notification history to determine if a certain notification should be provided is a mental step that can be performed by an individual. Specifically as related to wagering and incentives for wagering. This is a common mental step in commercial interactions wherein a judgement is made whether or not an individual qualifies for an offer or incentive related to performing an action. For example it is common to provide a discount if an individual creates an account or buys a certain amount of items. Therefore the mental step of observing the actions of an individual in a wagering game to determine if an incentive should be provided is a mental step. Amended claim language further includes a determining step which recites the use of a sensor. As per the independent claim the recited sensor is generically recite and reads as the simple act of observation of information in order to make a determination. As per claims 14-15 see step 2B below with examiner recognizing that not steps are included with the recited sensors performing a specific function but instead a plurality of conventional sensors are recited to perform the mental step of observation. As per the additional wagers see above regarding the determination of available wager is a mental steps that can be performed by an individual. As per the determining feature the claims does not recite additional steps beyond determining additional wagers and therefore no computer steps are recited that go beyond a mental function. Specifically an individual can observe a game and determine a wager using known metrics. Applicant does not recite steps that improve on the function of a computer or go beyond reasonable mental steps regarding the determining since the determining step is generically recited as “determine one or more odds”. This would be claiming the mental process of determining odds for a wagering game. For example an individual can observe that in the game of football their team has the ball in the red zone and is in a good position to score. The individual then can make a wager offer that the team will score on this drive based on the position of the team being in the red zone with the corresponding odds. Therefore not additional features are included that go beyond the mental step. As per claim 8 the sensors are recited as part of the system to gather data but does not recite any additional steps associated with the sensors. Therefore claim 8’s inclusion of sensors is addressed below. Further, along similar lines of reasons for the above mental steps, the action of providing an incentive is the commercial activity of advertising wherein a user is provided an incentive for performing certain commercial activity. In this case the incentive is provided for the commercial activity of wagering in a certain manner. As per the use of cohort examiner recognizes that this is the well-known technique grouping users together into a subset based on shared characteristics. Further it is well-known to perform this for the purpose of business analytics. See at least “A Beginner’s Guide to Cohort Analysis: the Most Actionable (and Underrated) Report on Google Analytics” by Patrick Han 9/28/2017 with focus on “What is a cohort? In a nutshell, a cohort is simply a subset of users grouped by shared characteristics. In the context of business analytics, a cohort usually refers to a subset of users specifically segmented by acquisition date (i.e. the first time a user visits your website).” and “A “cohort analysis,” then, simply allows you to compare the behavior and metrics of different cohorts over time. You can then find the highest-performing (or lowest-performing) cohorts, and what factors are driving this performance.”. Therefore the language concerning the use of cohorts is directed to known mental steps which businesses use to analyze data in order to note trends or other relevant information. This would include the mental step of providing an incentive to a group and determining if the incentive is effective since this allows for a business to determine if the incentive is working in the first place. Without this knowledge a business would be unaware if they should continue or modify a provided incentive in order to produce the desired results. The use of a data for this step is handled in step 2B below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims remain directed towards mental steps and commercial interactions in the form of providing sale offers for the purpose of advertising. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps do not go beyond the recited mental or commercial steps nor do they include a practical application beyond automating the performance or storing of the information. The action of using a general computer element or sensors, addressed below in step 2B, does not provide a practical application in of itself nor does any step appear to be more that the action of automating. Therefore the reasons for performing the steps are known reasons generic to the identified exemptions such as encouraging commercial actions and does not provide a practical application.
As per step 2B examiner recognizes that additional elements are directed to conventional activities or extra solution activity. See below.
Limitations directed towards systems or database, obtaining sensor data, and other hardware elements are commonly found in the gaming art related to electronic wagering game machines or wagering terminals and therefore are no more than a generic recitation of computer hardware elements including network elements and therefore does not provide a practical application that amounts to more than the identified abstract idea. This includes amended language for obtaining sensor data from one or more sensors at a live sporting event, wherein odds are generated in real time for a live sporting event based upon the sensor data. This includes the recitation of memory, processors, and displaying steps which are generically found in electronic gaming machine including the elements accepting wagers for the purpose of presenting an outcome and payout for the results. See Haag (US Pub. No. 2018/0025583 A1) shows it is conventional in the art to have a gaming system track play in order to provide an incentive via a player loyalty program (paragraph [0038]). Baerlocher (US Pub. No. 2002/0155883 A1) teaches the use of well-known databases to store player tracking information (paragraph [0048]). Ramsaran (US Pub. No. 2016/0103220 A1) teaches "In one example of conventional sensor technology to record ball movement is a smart soccer ball. Such technology can be used to measure ball trajectories as well as be used in conjunction with external sensor technology to determine goal scoring. Another example includes external camera and/or sensors placed in a geometric configuration around a field of play that tracks player movement. Such a sensor system may record the number of meters a player runs during a match or other statistics and metrics related to player performance." (paragraph [0003]). Therefore the generic recitation of sensors of the inclusion of the sensors listed in claims 14-15 are conventional in nature for measuring data related to a sports game. Regarding updating live odds data see “a conventional in-play or live gambling market, if the data received in the game generator unit 20 is representative of a discrete occurrence in any one of the current live events 6, 8 which has an impact on one or more of the live or “in-play” markets (indicated generally at 21A, 21B) currently being offered for that event by the gambling platform, e.g. in the football context, one team scores a goal thus impacting the odds of one or other team in the event winning, then game generator unit 20 makes appropriate automatic adjustments to the odds of all those in-play markets which might be affected (and by differing amounts as appropriate).” paragraph [0037]. Therefore these steps and hardware elements are no more than a generic recitation of computer hardware elements or method and therefore does not provide a practical application that amounts to more than the identified abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See 112 above regarding sensors tied to odds determination. See updated 101 step 2B for computer systems determining live odds. Additionally the action of determining odds is a mental step regarding carrying out a game which a user can perform. Odds determination for sports wagering for example predates the use of computers. Therefore the inclusion of this feature is a mental step. See step 2A above. Regarding removing wagering language and incentive language examiner interprets the current language as still reading on these features. See step 2A above. Therefore the 101 is maintained.
Examiner notes regarding notification and odds that support can be found in paragraph [0044] wherein incentives can include modification to odds and therefore a presentation would be involved.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JUSTIN L MYHR whose telephone number is (571)270-7847. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/JUSTIN L MYHR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 4/3/2026