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 1-9 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. Claims 1-9 are directed to an abstract idea 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 method and system, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
The claims recite a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recite the steps of a method for detecting uncommon transactions in a wagering system, the method comprising:
receiving a wager on an action in a sporting event from a user;
associating the wager on the action in the sporting event with a user ID;
storing the wager on the action;
comparing the wager on the action in the sporting event to a plurality of previous wagers in a historical wager database; and
determining that the wager on the action in the sporting event is uncommon based on the comparison of the wager on the action in the sporting event to the plurality of previous wagers in the historical wager database.
The claim limitations (as underlined above) are steps of organizing human activity.
According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, organizing human activity includes managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The interaction encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping.
The claim limitations (as underlined) recite that a wagering system has uncommon transactions comprising a wager associated with a player is received. The steps of playing a wagering game and managing the wager and bet in a game is step of a fundamental economic principle or practice and also step of managing social activities. The abstract idea of organizing human activity includes managing interaction between people including social activities. Therefore, the claim recite an abstract idea of organizing human activity.
Step 2a2 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)
Claims 1-9 do not apply a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing.
Claims 1-9 are not directed to an improvement to a function of a computer. There is no improvement to a technical field. In addition, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
The claim recite one or more processors to perform the abstract idea of managing a game. As indicated in Applicant’s specification, the user device is a general purpose computer. Although not positively claimed as part of the claimed system, the claim indicates that that system is connected to a server, and databases. The server, database, are also used to implement the abstract idea in a computer embodiment. The use of a computer generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Furthermore, purchasing “uncommon transactions” involving wagers as recited in the claims are directed to exchanging and resolving financial obligations, which is a step of a fundamental economic principle or practice. According to the MPEP 2106.04, The courts have used the phrases “fundamental economic practices” or “ fundamental economic principles” to describe concepts relating to the economy and commerce.
Other examples of "fundamental economic principles or practices" include:
i. mitigating settlement risk, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank,573 U.S. 208, 218, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982 (2014);
ii. rules for conducting a wagering game, In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
iii. financial instruments that are designed to protect against the risk of investing in financial instruments, In re Chorna, 656 Fed. App'x 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential);
iv. offer-based price optimization, OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362–63, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
v. local processing of payments for remotely purchased goods, Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath Beyond, 876 F.3d 1372, 1378-79, 125 USPQ2d 1019, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
vi. using a marking affixed to the outside of a mail object to communicate information about the mail object, i.e., the sender, recipient, and contents of the mail object, Secured Mail Solutions LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 873 F.3d 905, 911, 124 USPQ2d 1502, 1506 (Fed. Cir. 2017); and
vii. placing an order based on displayed market information, Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
The examiner has interpreted “receiving a wager”, “storing the wager”, “determining the wager”, etc. as local processing of payments for virtual wagering items, which is an example of a fundamental economic principles or practices.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception.
The claims recites additional limitation of a computer system. These limitations are not positively claimed to be part of the claimed system. Assuming that they were part of the claims system, these limitations in combination with the user terminal is used to transmit and storing (retrieving and providing steps, identify and display information (event information, location, selection options, prizes).
The courts have ruled that storing data in a database and retrieving data from a database is well-known conventional and routine functions of a computer as indicated below.
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log).
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Double Patenting
3. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper time wise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
4. Claims 1-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,967,204. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both describe the same game method for detecting uncommon transactions in a wagering system, the method comprising: receiving a wager on an action in a sporting event from a user; associating the wager on the action in the sporting event with a user ID; storing the wager on the action; comparing the wager on the action in the sporting event to a plurality of previous wagers in a historical wager database; and determining that the wager on the action in the sporting event is uncommon based on the comparison of the wager on the action in the sporting event to the plurality of previous wagers in the historical wager database (see claim 1 of US 11,967,204).
5. Claims 1-20 of the US patent, discloses every element and limitation of Claims 1-9 of the present application. The difference however is that the present application’s claims have fewer elements than the US Patent, and hence appears to be broader in scope and is therefore an obvious variant thereof of US Patent 11,967,204. The following claim chart shows the claim-to-claim comparison between independent claims from both applications.
18/631,288
11,967,204
1. A method for detecting uncommon transactions in a wagering system, the method comprising:
receiving a wager on an action in a sporting event from a user; associating the wager on the action in the sporting event with a user ID;
storing the wager on the action;
comparing the wager on the action in the sporting event to a plurality of previous wagers in a historical wager database; and
determining that the wager on the action in the sporting event is uncommon based on the comparison of the wager on the action in the sporting event to the plurality of previous wagers in the historical wager database.
2. The method for detecting uncommon transactions in a wagering system of claim 1, further comprising automatically sending an alert to the user after the wager on the action in the live sporting event is determined to be uncommon.
3. The method for detecting uncommon transactions in a wagering system of claim 2, further comprising requesting the user to verify the uncommon wager.
1. A method for detecting uncommon transactions in a wagering system, the method comprising:
receiving a wager on an action in a sporting event from a user via a communication device;
storing the wager on the action in the sporting event in a current wager database;
comparing the stored wager to a plurality of previous wagers from other users in a historical wager database;
determining, using artificial intelligence, that the wager on the action in the sporting event is uncommon based on the comparison of the wager to the plurality of previous wagers in the historical database;
automatically sending an alert to the user after the wager on the action in the sporting event is determined to be uncommon,
wherein the alert comprises a request for the user to verify the uncommon wager.
This is an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
6. Claims 1-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,403,912. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both describe the same game method for detecting uncommon transactions in a wagering system, the method comprising: receiving a wager on an action in a sporting event from a user; associating the wager on the action in the sporting event with a user ID; storing the wager on the action; comparing the wager on the action in the sporting event to a plurality of previous wagers in a historical wager database; and determining that the wager on the action in the sporting event is uncommon based on the comparison of the wager on the action in the sporting event to the plurality of previous wagers in the historical wager database (see claim 1 of US 11,403,912).
7. Claims 1-20 of the US patent, discloses every element and limitation of Claims 1-9 of the present application. The difference however is that the present application’s claims have fewer elements than the US Patent, and hence appears to be broader in scope and is therefore an obvious variant thereof of US Patent 11,403,912. The following claim chart shows the claim-to-claim comparison between independent claims from both applications.
18/631,288
11,403,912
1. A method for detecting uncommon transactions in a wagering system, the method comprising: receiving a wager on an action in a sporting event from a user;
associating the wager on the action in the sporting event with a user ID;
storing the wager on the action;
comparing the wager on the action in the sporting event to a plurality of previous wagers in a historical wager database; and
determining that the wager on the action in the sporting event is uncommon based on the comparison of the wager on the action in the sporting event to the plurality of previous wagers in the historical wager database.
2. The method for detecting uncommon transactions in a wagering system of claim 1, further comprising automatically sending an alert to the user after the wager on the action in the live sporting event is determined to be uncommon.
3. The method for detecting uncommon transactions in a wagering system of claim 2, further comprising requesting the user to verify the uncommon wager.
1. A method for detecting uncommon transactions in a wagering system, the method comprising: receiving a wager on an action in a live sporting event from a user;
associating the wager on the action in the live sporting event with a user ID;
storing the wager on the action in the live sporting event in a wager database;
comparing the wager on the action in the live sporting event to a plurality of previous wagers in a historical wager database;
determining that the wager on the action in the live sporting event is uncommon based on the comparison of the wager on the action in the live sporting event to the plurality of previous wagers in the historical wager database;
automatically sending an alert to the user after the wager on the action in the live sporting event is determined to be uncommon; and
requesting the user to verify the uncommon wager.
This is an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADETOKUNBO OLUSEGUN TORIMIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-1345. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri (8am - 4pm).
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, Peter Vasat can be reached on (571)270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADETOKUNBO O TORIMIRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715