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
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
4. Step 1
Claims 1-20 are directed to a system meeting the requirements for Step 1.
5. Step 2A Prong 1
In independent Claim 1, recite abstract sports gambling/wagering which is a certain method of organizing human activity (See Savvy Dog Sys. v. Pa. Coin, LLC, 2023-1073 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 21, 2024), In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1161, 129 USPQ2d 1008, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
6. Step 2A Prong II
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. According to 2019 PEG, a consideration indicative of integration into a practical application includes improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular application (a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components for filtering Internet content, as discussed in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Conversely, considerations not indicative of integration include adding words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)); adding insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Here, one or more computer processors with executable instructions are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than in name only) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Applicant’s Specification does not disclose that the processor or instructions ([0004-0020) nor the interface of Fig. 5 which can be well-known tablets, smartphones, laptops ([0077]) are directed to a technological solution to a technological problem that “overcome some sort of technical difficulty.” citing ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 768 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Consequently, these devices and programming are viewed as nothing more than an
attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer or as a means to automate the steps. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
The recited element of opening an account, identifying operators, gathering data, aggregating data, displaying data to a user, receiving user input, receiving payments, placing bets, receiving results of a bet, notifying users of results, receiving payback and sending payback to a user are extra-solution activity and/or additional aspects of the abstract wagering itself (e.g., placing a bet). Even when the limitations are viewed in combination, the additional elements in this claim do no more than automate the steps needed to be performed, using the one of more computer components as tools. While this type of automation is an improvement in a general sense as opposed to performance manually, there is no change to the computers and other technology that are recited in the claim as automating the abstract ideas, and thus this claim cannot improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Latric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality).
Accordingly, each claim, as a whole, does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. Thus, Claim 1 lacks the eligibility requirements of Step 2 Prong II.
7. Step 2B
According to the 2019 PEG, in addition to the considerations discussed in Step 2A, an additional consideration indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) is the addition of a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Conversely, an additional consideration not indicative of an inventive concept is simply appending well-understood, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo, April 20, 2018). Thus, the additional elements evaluated under Step 2A are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The opening an account, identifying operators, gathering data, aggregating data, displaying data to a user, receiving user input, receiving payments, placing bets, receiving results of a bet, notifying users of results, receiving payback and sending payback to a user are well-known and conventional activities (See receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i), performing repetitive calculations (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii), storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) recording a customer’s order (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i), determining an estimated outcome and setting a price (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(v), accordingly, a conclusion that the step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. Therefore, these limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and do not amount to significantly more. Thus, Claim 1 does not recite additional elements, individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, Claim 1 is ineligible.
8. Dependent Claims 2-20
Claims 2-20 inherit the same abstract idea as Claim 1.
Claims 2-5 recite abstract payment rules or parameters of the wagering. Claims 6-8 further specify extra-solution data content, manipulation, and modification. Claims 9-13 recite abstract development of a prediction as part of the abstract wagering. Claims 14-15 recites extra-solution data gathering on operators and jurisdictions. Claim 16-20 recites further abstract wagering rules of the game. Thus, none of the claims supply a practical application or inventive concept sufficient to transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.
9. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter wherein the claim recites a computerized system that is not embodied in a non-transitory storage medium. Because Applicant's disclosure is not limited solely to tangible embodiments, the claimed subject matter, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, may be a carrier wave comprising of instructions and is, therefore, non-statutory. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable storage medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable storage media, particularly when the specification is silent. (See MPEP 2111.01). When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter (See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2). Appropriate attention is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
11. Claims 1-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a1)(a2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. Pub. No. U.S. Pat. No. 2021/0264735 to Joao.
In Reference to Claim 1
Joao discloses a computerized sports betting system (Titl., Fig. 1), comprising:
one or more hardware computer processors configured with computer-executable
instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more hardware computer processors to (central processor 10 specially programmed [0018]):
open a platform account at each of a first list of operators (operators are sportsbooks operating on one or more bookmaker computers 94 [0665] where it hosts for each user sports betting account information [0346] where sports betting providers are presented on a user interface [0294] to create user profiles [0201] and access and registering accounts on the central processing computer [0081, 0088], for all sports bets the user receives and selects from menus or listings on an apparatus 100 [0834]);
identify a second list of operators (while determining legal bets [0187] the system also determines legality by jurisdiction and disallows illegal bets based on jurisdiction [0188], Examiner interprets the lists or menus wherein legal bets can be placed as a second list);
gather individual sports gambling data from each of the second list of operators ([0346] “gambling account information … to perform any and/or all processing routines and functionality as described herein as being performed or provided by the apparatus 100”);
aggregate the individual sports gambling data from the second list of operators into
aggregated sports gambling data (database 10H will also include sports betting laws, regulations, gaming laws for each country and jurisdiction [0362]);
display the aggregated sports gambling data to a user (“and functionality as described herein as being performed or provided by the apparatus 100” [0346]);
receive an input from the user (input device 10D [0339], place a bet on a sporting event taking place [0033]),
wherein the input includes a target sport-related event [0033]), a target operator among
the second list of operators (bets are allowed where legal in a jurisdiction [0187]), and a target monetary value (“Each time a bet is placed, the central processing computer can process and store information regarding the bet placed by the individual or user, the bet placed by any other individual or user, the sporting event, game, match, activity, competition, or tournament, on which the bet is placed, the sporting event, game, match, activity, competition, or tournament, during which the bet is placed, the amount of the bet, the time of the bet, the date of the bet, a counterparty to the bet, the sports betting account, gaming account, or gambling account, used in placing the bet or in connection with the bet, any information regarding whether or not the bet monies are instructed to be placed in escrow with the escrow agent computer, and/or any other information regarding the bet.” [0100]);
receive a first payment corresponding to the target monetary value from the user ([0100]), place, via the platform account at the target operator, a bet on the target sport-related
event of the target monetary value ([0100]);
receive a result of the bet from the target operator (outcome [0116]);
notify the user of the result (results are transmitted to the user device [0680 and notification also provided [0842]);
in response to that the user wins the bet:
receive a payback from the target operator and send a second payment corresponding to an amount of the payback to the user (Examiner construes this limitation as the sportsbook crediting a user betting account and the user drawing from said account to receive payment [0118, 0879]).
In Reference to Claims 2 and 3
Examiner construes wherein the first payment is no less than or equal to the target monetary value as the reported winnings being the amount of what is transferred to the player account [0118]).
In Reference to Claims 4 and 5
Examiner construes wherein the second payment is no larger than or equal the amount of the payback as an intended use wherein that the user draws from his account the same amount as what was credited to his account for a single bet.
In Reference to Claim 14
Joao discloses identifying the second list of operators includes:
identifying a state where a user locates in, checking if sports gambling is legal in the state and in response to that sports gambling is legal in the state, identifying a second list of operators that are legally available in the state ([0004, 0187, 0188, 0189, 0477, 0482]) to generate lists of respective sporting events and jurisdictions.
In Reference to Claim 15
Joao notified the user of an illegal bet based on jurisdiction (notification of which bets can be placed [0134, 0530] and notification of navigation directions where a disallowed bet can be placed [0188]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Claim 6 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joao in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0327771 to Restivo.
Joao discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose wherein the individual sports gambling data includes a plurality of sport-related events and a line corresponding to each of the plurality of sport-related events. One of skill in the art would be aware of the sportsbook betting of Restivo.
Restivo teaches of placing bets with bookmakers from among a plurality of sportsbooks (Fig. 1, Fig. 3B receive bets from sportsbook 309) wherein bets are displayed in tabular form 70 (Fig. 7, [0030, 0041]).
The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; and
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Joao with a presentation of a screen display sharing a plurality of bets with a line corresponding to each of the sporting events wagered upon of Restivo to achieve the predictable result of displaying a plurality of bets on a user interface so a user can be reminded and keep track of the plurality of bets that have been placed. The Courts have held that applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
In Reference to Claims 9-11
Joao discloses generating odds {a prediction} corresponding to each of the plurality of sport-related events ([0068]). Examiner interprets the odds of Joao to be an expression of probability as well as evidence that the event is able to be predicted.
16. Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joao, Restivo further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0111325 to Lockton.
Joao discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose wherein the prediction is generated by a machine learning model trained with feature data, wherein the feature data includes sport-related statistics. One of skill in the art would be aware of the teachings of Lockton.
Lockton teaches of setting odds for betting propositions (Titl.) wherein in live sports betting machine learning and performance statistics are utilized by bookmakers where “[l]ive In-Play bookmakers, in order to maximize the TV betting audience's collective focus on the “ in the moment” game state, generate an In-Play proposition that reflects the unique and generally one-of -a kind game situation—(“Will the Colts score on the next play?”—“Will the ruling on the field be overturned?”) and depending on the sport, set the odds within 5-10 seconds, varying by whether there is, for example, a time out, commercial break, replay, injury or ongoing action as in soccer. Today live book makers utilize a combination of AI driven computer programs utilizing machine learning and neural networks which rely on historic performance data and probabilities, real time analysis of the in-progress game's statistics, historical data on the experience with the same or similar proposition, analysis of competitor bookmakers odds, and human experts who evaluate all these sources available and the computer systems' recommendations. [0010].
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to amplify the manner in which real-time propositions are generated in Joao with the machine learning and statistics of Lockton in order the achieve the predictable result of maximizing the audience’s collective focus of the game to generate unique and timely propositions. The Courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
17. Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joao, Restivo, Lockton further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0222999 to Huke.
Joao discloses the invention substantially as claimed to include gathering the sports event {feature} data ([0346]). However, the reference does not explicitly disclose the generation of a prediction corresponding to each of the plurality of sport-related events includes: gathering the feature data; feeding the feature data to the machine learning model; obtaining the prediction generated by the machine learning model; gathering an actual result of each of the plurality of the sport-related events; saving the actual result of each of the plurality of the sport-related events with the feature data; retraining the machine learning model on a batch basis with the actual result of each of the plurality of the sport-related events and the feature data. One of skill in the art would be aware that these are well-known steps regarding the training of a machine learning model as taught by Huke.
According to Huke, identifying characteristics of wagers available such as created by a sportsbook system [0018] would gathering the feature data of “features, measurable properties, and parameters of a data set” ([0067]); feeding the feature data to the machine learning model ([0067] ‘training data as input” into “machine learning algorithm” [0067]); obtaining the prediction generated by the machine learning model (patterns [0067]); gathering an actual result of each of the plurality of the sport-related events (uses patterns to train the model for expected results (target) [0067]); saving the actual result of each of the plurality of the sport-related events with the feature data and retraining the machine learning model on a batch basis with the actual result of each of the plurality of the sport-related events and the feature data (new data is fed into the model and the outcome checked and categorized into types of results [0068] and this data once analyzed is saved to classify new data as in a supervised machine learning algorithm [0069]). Huke invents this approach for use in wagering where “[a] supervised machine learning algorithm may be trained on historical notification and wager data to develop a model that identifies a relationship between the score of the game the user is watching, teams involved, and the user's location and the user responding to the notification. For example, a user may be highly likely to respond to a notification when the New York Giants are winning by more than ten points, and he is watching the game at his local sports bar.” [0081]).
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify the development of betting propositions of Joao with the machine learning of Huke in order to increase the likelihood that a user will respond to a notification through the application of machine learning or in the case of the betting in Joao, compelling enticement that a player will keep wagering. The Courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
18. Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a1)(a2) as being anticipated by Joao further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0280006 to Pace.
Joao discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose in response to that the target monetary value exceeds a first threshold, send a warning to the user and wherein the first threshold is preset by the user. One of skill in the art would recognize conventional measures taken for responsible gaming as taught by Pace.
Pace discloses wagering and responsible gaming ([0009]) such that players may create account deposit limits [0011] such that when a limit is imposed on player activity tying it to said limit. Other limits {second threshold} tracks the total amount of money the user bets called a “wager limit” and “time limits” in which there is a limit on how long a player may spend gaming [0011]. When a player set limit is exceeded a warning is sent to the player [00012]. Pace invents this process as part of “’responsible gaming consumption’ (sometimes referred to herein as “RGC”) scheme to protect vulnerable individuals. An RGC scheme may include a wide array of programs designed to help players enjoy gaming responsibly, educate players on steps they can take to control their gaming entertainment, and provide resources where players can obtain assistance when needed.”([0004]).
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify the wagering of Joao with the responsible gaming limits {thresholds} and warning to the player to achieve the predictable result of protecting vulnerable individuals. The Courts have held that applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
Allowable Subject Matter
19. Claims 7-8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
20. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art references do not disclose a most favorable line corresponding to each of the plurality of sport-related events is identified, wherein for the display of the aggregated sports
gambling data, the most favorable line corresponding to each of the plurality of sport-related events is highlighted.
Conclusion
21. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is in the Notice of References Cited.
22. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul A. D’Agostino whose telephone number is (571) 270-1992.
23. 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.
24. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Lewis can be reached on (571) 272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-2992.
/PAUL A D'AGOSTINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715