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
Status of Claims
This action is a first action on the merits in response to the application filed on 04/30/2024.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Claim Objection
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are objected to for the following informalities. Claim 5 recites, “…the simulated markets model utilizes the at least one correlation to predict how the plurality of users will reach [react] under a predetermined condition,” at lines 4-5. There appears to be a grammatical issue. Appropriate correction is required for all claims.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
receiving, at a [computer system], sports data;
generating, by executing a predictive event outcomes model using [at least one processor of the computer system], simulated events data, wherein input to the predictive event outcomes model comprises the sports data;
executing, [via the at least one processor], a simulated market participant data model, resulting in a simulated markets model, wherein inputs to the simulated market participant data model comprises the sports data and the simulated events data;
executing, via [the at least one processor] using the simulated events data associated with a single sporting event, a single event analysis, resulting in a single event prediction;
simulating, via [the at least one processor] executing the simulated markets model, betting markets for the single sporting event, resulting in predicted betting markets, wherein the executing of the single event analysis and the simulating of the betting markets occur in parallel; and
outputting, [to a user interface from the computer system], the single event prediction and the predicted betting markets.
The limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers Mental Processes related to observation and evaluation of data, but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. a processor). For example, receiving sports data, executing a predictive event outcomes model to generate simulated events data and expecting a simulated market participant model to produce a market model encompasses collecting and evaluating data. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of Mental Processes.
Independent Claims 8 and 15 substantially recite the subject matter of Claim 1 and also include the abstract idea identified above. The dependent claims encompass the same abstract ideas. For instance, Claim 2 is directed to a cloud computing system; Claim 3 is directed to periodically executing event analysis and simulating; Claim 4 is directed to cumulative probability of plurality of events; Claim 5 is directed to market data including historical data; Claim 6 is directed to ranking betting options and Claim 7 is directed to simulating using weightings. Claims 9-14 and 16-20 substantially recite the subject matter of Claims 2-7 and encompass same abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims further limit the abstract concepts found in the independent claims.
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a computer system and at least one processor. Claim 8 recites the additional elements of at least one processor and a non-tangible computer-readable storage medium. Claim 15 recites the additional elements of a non-tangible computer readable storage medium and at least one processor. These are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions (see Spec ¶0052).
For instance, the step of receiving sports data is data gathering activity. The steps of generating simulated event data by executing a predictive event outcome model, executing a simulated market participant data model, and executing a single event analysis resulting in a prediction involve analyzing data using data models. The step of outputting a single event prediction is generic display functionality. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional elements of a processor, a crm and user interface are considered generic computer components performing generic computer functions that amount to no more than instructions to implement the judicial exception. Mere, instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be ineligible for the same reason above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8, 11, 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by McKeever et al. (US 2020/0105107).
Claim 1:
McKeever discloses:
A method comprising: receiving, at a computer system, sports data; (see at least ¶0045, obtaining publicly available information; see also ¶0062, past race data)
generating, by executing a predictive event outcomes model using at least one processor of the computer system, simulated events data, wherein input to the predictive event outcomes model comprises the sports data; (see at least ¶0045, predicted win percentage represents likelihood that horse will win the race based on the algorithm; see also ¶0062; see also ¶0002)
executing, via the at least one processor, a simulated market participant data model, resulting in a simulated markets model, wherein inputs to the simulated market participant data model comprises the sports data and the simulated events data; (see at least ¶0064, the horse selector may determine an optimal selection of horses in response to user’s interaction with the automatic ticket generator)
executing, via the at least one processor using the simulated events data associated with a single sporting event, a single event analysis, resulting in a single event prediction; (see at least ¶0072, user selects a vertical bet type for a single race, user may mark first, second and third place associated with each horse and ticket cost and predicted ticket win percentage may be calculated)
simulating, via the at least one processor executing the simulated markets model, betting markets for the single sporting event, resulting in predicted betting markets, wherein the executing of the single event analysis and the simulating of the betting markets occur in parallel; and (see at least ¶0072, user selects a vertical bet type for a single race, user may mark first, second and third place associated with each horse and ticket cost and predicted ticket win percentage may be calculated)
outputting, to a user interface from the computer system, the single event prediction and the predicted betting markets. (see at least Figure 5 and ¶0073, betting GUI)
Claim 4:
McKeever discloses claim 1. McKeever further discloses:
wherein the single event prediction comprises a cumulative probability of a plurality of events occurring within the single sporting event. (see at least ¶0047, predicted win percentages are calculated by multiplying probabilities represented by the predicted win percentages.)
Claims 8 and 11 for a system (see McKeever Figures 1 and 16) and Claims 15 and 18 for a CRM (see McKeever ¶0122) substantially recites the subject matter of Claims 1 and 4 and are rejected based on the same rationale.
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 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 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(a) 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 2, 3, 9, 10, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over McKeever et al. (US 2020/0105107) in view of Khosla (US 2022/0375299)
Claim 2:
While McKeever discloses claim 1, McKeever does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Khosla does disclose:
wherein computer system is a cloud computing system. (see at least ¶0039, cloud computing)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the calculating win prediction of McKeever with the use of cloud computing of Khosla since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 3:
McKeever and Khosla disclose claim 2, McKeever further discloses:
wherein: the sports data is periodically received while the single sporting event is ongoing; and (see at least ¶0043, dynamically populated with actual race data that is continually updated; see also ¶0059)
the single event analysis and the simulating of the betting markets are repeatedly executed each time the sports data is periodically received, such that: the single event prediction and the predicted betting markets are periodically updated; and (see at least ¶0068, horse win percentage calculator utilizes live odds to calculate win percentage; see also ¶0110; see also ¶0072, user selects a vertical bet type for a single race, user may mark first, second and third place associated with each horse and ticket cost and predicted ticket win percentage may be calculated)
the user interface is periodically updated upon receiving one or more of an updated single event prediction and an update of the predicted betting markets. (see at least Figure 5 and ¶0073, betting GUI)
Claims 9 and 10 for a system (see McKeever Figures 1 and 16) and Claims 16 and 17 for a CRM (see McKeever ¶0122) substantially recites the subject matter of Claims 2 and 3 and are rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over McKeever et al. (US 2020/0105107) in view of Huke (2022/0222999).
Claim 5:
While McKeever discloses claim 1, McKeever further discloses wherein: the simulated market participant data model identifies historical behaviors of a plurality of users (see at least ¶0070, generate betting statistics/feedback associated with users), McKeever does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Huke does disclose:
wherein: the simulated market participant data model identifies historical behaviors of a plurality of users, resulting in at least one correlation; and (see at least see at least ¶0070, provided a dataset of historical sporting events, the odds of various outcomes of those sporting events, action waged on those outcomes and predicting action on future outcomes)
the simulated markets model utilizes the at least one correlation to predict how the plurality of users will reach under a predetermined condition. (see at least ¶0077, identify actions that are highly correlated with actions of the user previously played or wagered)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the calculating win prediction of McKeever with the action correlation of a user’s historical actions of Huke to assist in identifying which wagers that user is interested in making (see Spec ¶0004).
Claim 6:
McKeever and Huke disclose claim 5. McKeever further discloses:
further comprising: ranking, via the at least one processor, a plurality of betting options based on the single event prediction, the predicted betting markets, a projected upside, resulting in a ranked list of betting options; (see at least ¶0045, predicted win percentages are ordered with the higher predicted winners appearing first)
identifying, via the at least one processor, a number of top ranked bets within the ranked list of betting options; and (see at least ¶0045, predicted win percentages are ordered with the higher predicted winners appearing first)
presenting, via the user interface, the number of top ranked bets to a user. (see at least ¶0045, predicted win percentages are ordered with the higher predicted winners appearing first)
Claims 12 and 13 for a system (see McKeever Figures 1 and 16) and Claims 19 and 20 for a CRM (see McKeever ¶0122) substantially recites the subject matter of Claims 5 and 6 and are rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over McKeever et al. (US 2020/0105107) in view of Huke (2022/0222999) further in view of Basch et al. (US 2022/0188672).
Claim 7:
While McKeever discloses claim 6, neither McKeever nor Huke explicitly disclose the following limitations; however Basch does disclose:
further comprising: receiving, from the user: a simulation weight; a projection weight; an upside weight; and a correlation weight, wherein: the simulation weight modifies how the single event prediction is ranked; the projection weight modifies how the predicted betting markets are ranked; the upside weight modifies how a projected upside is ranked; and the correlation weight modifies how the at least one correlation effects the simulated markets model. (see at least ¶0048, weighted predictions; see also ¶0064, weighted projections; see also ¶0035, utilizing weightings; see also ¶0057, ranking prediction data utilizing ML and associated weight; see also ¶0056, predicted odds weighting)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the calculating win prediction of McKeever and the action correlation of a user’s historical actions of Huke with utilizing statistical techniques to automatically weight data to emphasize the importance of a prediction.
Claim 14 for a system (see McKeever Figures 1 and 16) substantially recites the subject matter of Claim 7 and is rejected based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
Fine et al. (US 8396777) discloses a prediction market typically treats events being predicted as a financial market and allows users to trade "stocks" representing event outcomes such that users can place varying bets on outcomes, the magnitude and type of bet made provides some measure of confidence of the user's belief.
Olsen et al. (US 2015/0065214) discloses in response to selection of the projected fantasy option, the user interface may provide a prediction of future performance for players and teams, based on historical and statistical data, as well as rankings and ratings provided by users (crowd sourced data)
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Renae Feacher whose telephone number is 571-270-5485. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737.
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.
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 http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/Renae Feacher/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625