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
Prior to examination, claims 1 – 4 were cancelled and claims 5 – 20 were added. Claims 5 – 20 are now pending in the current application.
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 5 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
I. The claims are drawn to apparatus, process and CRM categories.
II. Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2a:
III. Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Representative claim 1 is analyzed below, with italicized limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea.
5. A non-transitory, computer-implemented method on a bet exchange system operating on a server and having a system database, the method comprising: receiving a plurality of bet orders over a data network from a plurality of client devices associated with a plurality of traders, where the client devices are each configured to: prompt and receive user input and to generate a bet order in accordance with the user input, the bet order including digital data corresponding to a for-order for a bet position on a bet event occurring or an against-order for a bet position on the bet event not occurring, each bet order having an amount, where the client device is further configured to transmit the bet order via the data network to be matched, and to display at least one bet position indicative of a corresponding bet contract received at the client device in response to previously transmitted bet orders, where each bet position displayed includes at least the last trade value for the bet position; matching for-orders with against-order and generating by a processor on the server, instances of two-party bet contracts each having a for position and an against position on the bet event, each bet contract comprising a bet event identifier and a payout amount, where the bet exchange core module compares the amount of the bet orders to determine a trade amount for a match; and settling, by the processor on the server, the bet contracts by transferring an amount based on a final trade value of the instances of bet contracts and the payout amount to traders holding for positions when the bet event has occurred or to the traders holding against positions when the bet event has not occurred.
The underlined limitations fall within at least three of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG:
Fundamental economic principles or practices
Commercial or legal interactions
Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people
The claims are directed towards incentivizing the behavior of users playing a game via group agreements or contract. This is viewed by the Examiner as a fundamental economic practice, an agreement in the form of contracts, and managing personal behavior or relationships between people, which are all considered to be abstract ideas according to the 2019 guidelines.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
iii. Although the claims recite additional limitations, such as random generator, the said additional limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require additional limitations such as an interface and display components.
iv. These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2b:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, the claim language does recite additional elements such as a processor and a server, however, viewed as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 5 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1 - 16 of prior U.S. Patent No. 11,978,320. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 5: A non-transitory, computer-implemented method on a bet exchange system operating on a server and having a system database, the method comprising: receiving a plurality of bet orders over a data network from a plurality of client devices associated with a plurality of traders, where the client devices are each configured to: prompt and receive user input and to generate a bet order in accordance with the user input, the bet order including digital data corresponding to a for-order for a bet position on a bet event occurring or an against-order for a bet position on the bet event not occurring, each bet order having an amount, where the client device is further configured to transmit the bet order via the data network to be matched, and to display at least one bet position indicative of a corresponding bet contract received at the client device in response to previously transmitted bet orders, where each bet position displayed includes at least the last trade value for the bet position; matching for-orders with against-order and generating by a processor on the server, instances of two-party bet contracts each having a for position and an against position on the bet event, each bet contract comprising a bet event identifier and a payout amount, where the bet exchange core module compares the amount of the bet orders to determine a trade amount for a match; and settling, by the processor on the server, the bet contracts by transferring an amount based on a final trade value of the instances of bet contracts and the payout amount to traders holding for positions when the bet event has occurred or to the traders holding against positions when the bet event has not occurred, (claim 1).
Claim 6: The method of claim 5 where bet orders that are not matched are unmatched bet orders including unmatched for-orders and unmatched against-orders, the method comprising: receiving, by the processor, the unmatched bet orders; and storing the unmatched for-orders in a buy-side of an order book in a buy sequence starting from a highest valued unmatched for-order to a lowest valued unmatched for-order, the sequencing module further configured to store unmatched against-orders in a sell-side of the order book in a sell sequence starting from a lowest valued unmatched against-order to a highest valued against-order, (claim 2).
Claim 7: The method of claim 5 further comprising: matching for-orders and against-orders by comparing the amount of the for-orders with the amount of the against-orders; setting the trade amount of a match between each for-order and against-order to the amount of the bet order received earlier in time, (claim 3).
Claim 8: The method of claim 7 where in comparing the amounts of the bet orders, one of either the for-order or the against-order is a received bet order and the other one of the for- order or the against-order is retrieved from the order book, the bet exchange core module matches for-orders and against-orders by: setting the trade amount of the match between the for-order and against-order to the-amount of the bet order retrieved from the order book, (claim 4).
Claim 9: The method of claim 8 where in comparing the amounts of the bet orders: determining, during the comparing of the received bet order and the bet order in the order book whether a match based on the amount of the bet order from the order book is immediately executable; and moving the received bet order to the order book if the match is not immediately executable, (claim 5).
Claim 10: The method of claim 8 where the for-orders are buy-to-open (BTO) orders and the against-orders are sell-to-open (STO) orders, and where: a plurality of the bet orders received from the client devices includes buy-to-close (BTC) orders and sell-to-close (STC) orders, and the bet exchange core module, in addition to comparing BTO and STO bet orders, compares bet orders in combinations consisting of: BTO orders with STC orders, BTC orders with STO orders, and BTC orders with STC orders, the method further comprising: matching bet orders to transfer an existing for-position when a BTO order meets an STC order at a trade amount that is equal to or less than the amounts of the BTO order and the STC order; matching bet orders to transfer an existing against position when a BTC order meets an STO order at a trade amount that is equal to or less than the amounts of the BTC order and the STO order; and match bet orders to close an existing bet-against position and an existing for position to close two instances of the bet contract and generate a new instance of the bet contract when a BTC order meets an STC order at a trade amount that is equal to or less than the amounts of the BTC order and the STC order, (claim 6).
Claim 11: The method of claim 10 where each bet order includes a shares quantity indicative of, for for-orders, a number of for shares in the for position for which the for-order is placed, or, for against-orders, a number of -against shares requested in the against position for which the against-order is placed, (claim 7).
Claim 12: The method of claim 11 further comprising a current positions list corresponding to each trader where, when generating the instance of the bet contract, the bet position generated in the bet contract is transferred to the current positions list of the trader that sent the bet order, where each bet position comprises a quantity of shares, an average amount paid for each share, and an order type identifier, (claim 8).
Claim 13: The method of claim 12 where, each bet order received is sent by an order maker as either a for-order or an against-order, the method further comprising: determining, by the processor, when the received bet order is a received for-order, whether the current position list for the order maker of the received for-order includes existing positions in the bet event; processing, by the processor, the received for-order as a received BTO order when the current position list of the for-order maker does not include any existing positions in the bet event; determining, by the processor, whether the existing positions of the for-order maker in the bet event are for shares or against shares; processing, by the processor, the received for-order as a BTO order when the existing positions of the trader in the bet event are for shares; determining, by the processor, when the existing positions of the for-order maker are against shares, whether the share quantity of the received for-order is greater than the quantity of existing against shares; processing, by the processor, the received for-order as a received STC order with a share quantity equal to the share quantity of the existing against shares and moving the received for- order to the order book as a BTO order with a share quantity equal to a remainder of the share quantity of the received for-order when the share quantity of the received for-order is greater than the share quantity of existing against shares; and processing, by the processor, the received for-order as a received STC order for a share quantity equal to the share quantity of the received for-order and leaving the existing against shares as against shares with a share quantity equal to a remainder of the share quantity of existing against shares when the share quantity of the received for-order is less than or equal to the share quantity of existing against shares, (claim 9).
Claim 14: The method of claim 13 where in receiving each bet order, the method further comprises: determining, by the processor, when the received bet order is a received against-order, whether the current position list for the against-order maker includes existing positions in the bet event; processing, by the processor, the received against-order as a received STO order when the current position list of the against-order maker does not include any existing positions in the bet event; determining, by the processor, whether the existing positions of the against-order maker in the bet event are for shares or against shares; processing, by the processor, the received against-order as a received STO order when the existing positions of the against-order maker in the bet event are against shares; determining, by the processor, when the existing positions of the against-order maker are for shares, whether the share quantity of the received against-order is greater than the share quantity of the existing for shares; processing, by the processor, the received against-order as a BTC order with a share - quantity equal to the share quantity of the existing for shares and moving the received against- order as a STO order to the order book with a share quantity equal to a remainder of the share quantity of the received against-order when the share quantity of the received against-order is greater than the share quantity of existing buy-for positions; and processing, by the processor, the received against-order as a BTC order with a share quantity equal to the share quantity of the received against-order and leaving the existing for shares as for shares with a share quantity equal to a remainder of the quantity of existing for shares when the share quantity of the received against-order is less than the share quantity of existing for shares, (claim 10).
Claim 15: The method of claim 14 where in receiving the plurality of bet orders, the method further comprising: sequencing, by the processor, the unmatched BTO orders and BTC orders that are not immediately executable in the order book from a highest amount to a lowest amount, and to sequence the unmatched STO orders and STC orders that are not immediately executable in the order book from a lowest amount to a highest amount, (claim 11).
Claim 16: The method of claim 15 where in matching the one of the BTO orders with STO orders, the method further comprises: setting, by the processor, the last trade value per share of the bet event to the trade amount per share for the match between the BTO order and the STO order; generating, by the processor, the instance of the bet contract between the BTO order and the STO order for the bet event; deducting, by the processor, the value of the trade based on the trade amount per share of the bet event for the share quantity of the trade from the available balance of the trader that made the BTO order; and deducting, by the processor, the value of the trade based on the payout amount minus the trade amount per share for the share quantity of the trade from the available balance of the trader that made the STO order, (claim 12).
Claim 17: The method of claim 16 where in matching one of the BTO orders with one of the STC orders, the method further comprises: setting, by the processor, the last trade value of the bet event per share of the bet event to the trade amount per share for the match between the BTO order and the STC order; deducting, by the processor, the last trade value per share of the bet event for the share quantity of the match from the available balance of the trader that made the BTO order; and adding, by the processor, the last trade value per share of the bet event for the share quantity of the match to the available balance of the trader that made the STC order, (claim 13).
Claim 18: The method of claim 15 where in matching one of the BTC orders with one of the STO orders, the method comprises: setting, by the processor, the last trade value per share of the bet event to the trade amount per share for the match between the BTC order and the STO order; adding, by the processor, the payout amount per share minus the last trade value per share of the bet event for the quantity of shares matched from the available balance of the trader that made the BTC order; and deducting, by the processor, the payout amount per share minus the last trade value per share for the share quantity of the match from the available balance of the trader that made the STO order, (claim 14).
Claim 19: The method of claim 15 where in matching one of the BTC orders with one of the STC orders, the method comprises: setting, by the processor, the last trade value per share of the bet event to the trade amount per share for the match between the BTC order and the STC order; adding, by the processor, the payout amount per share minus the last trade value per share for the share quantity of the match from the available balance of the trader that made the STC order; and adding, by the processor, the last trade value per share for the quantity of shares in the match to the available balance of the trader that made the STC order, (claim 15).
Claim 20: The method of claim 15 where the method comprises: storing, by the processor, unmatched for-orders that could not be immediately executed in the order book on a for-side separate from an against-side; and storing, by the processor, unmatched against-orders in the order book in the against-side, (claim 16).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1699. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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 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.
/E.M.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3715 /DAVID L LEWIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715