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 .
Procedural Summary
This is responsive to the claims filed 06/05/2024.
The Examiner acknowledges the preliminary amendment filed on 06/05/2024 in which amendments were submitted.
Claims 19-36 are pending.
Applicant’s IDS submission is acknowledged and provided herewith.
The Drawings filed on 06/05/2024 are noted.
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 19 to 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The examiner follows the two step-analysis, as described in MPEP 2106 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html). The following diagram is an overview of the steps involved.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1 of the two step-analysis considers whether the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention such as a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The instant invention claims a method and a computer-implemented method in claims 19-36. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad statutory categories of invention. However, claims that fall within one of the four statutory categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas.
Step 2A has been further divided into two prongs as shown in the following diagram.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon. The term “abstract idea” is not interpreted as a layperson might. Instead, the term “abstract idea” is interpreted as described in legal opinions by courts.
According to MPEP 2106.04(a):
the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Here, representative claim 1 recites the following (with emphasis): “19. (New) A method of adjusting wager odds, comprising:
filtering, by machine learning, a historic database to match a current wager available on a gaming device (additional element),
selecting, by machine learning, a common parameter within historic data in the historic database,
determining, by machine learning, if there is correlated data,
extracting, by machine learning, data points from the correlated data,
comparing, by machine learning, the extracted data points to one or more thresholds, and
adjusting, by machine learning, the current wager on the gaming device.”
28. (New) A computer-implemented method for providing odds in a game program using game information, comprising executing on a processor (additional element) the steps of:
displaying data related to a live event in real time on a gaming device (additional element);
displaying one or more wagers related to real time wagering in the live event on the gaming device;
displaying at least one or more factors related to odds adjustment, determined by machine learning, for the one or more wagers on the gaming device; and
displaying one or more adjusted odds for the one or more wagers on the gaming device, wherein the one or more adjusted odds are determined by machine learning.”
The underlined portions of representative claim 19 generally encompass the abstract idea, with substantially similar features in claim 28. The dependent claims further define the abstract idea by introducing comparisons, judgments, and filtering about wagers (e.g., filtering historic database to match current wagers, extracting data points from correlated data, determining correlated data, etc.). The abstract idea may be viewed, for example, as:
a fundamental economic practice as discussed in In re Smith, and In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V.,
a method of managing a game similar to that of managing a game of bingo in Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F. App'x 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (non-precedential);
a set of game rules similar to increasing or decreasing the risk-to-reward ratio of a game, as discussed in Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of Am., 4 F.4th 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021);
use of machine learning in a given environment (e.g., for analyzing wager information) as discussed in Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2025); and/or
Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
The abstract idea is also comparable to the game rules presented on gaming machines in Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of America, in which a reward probability could be increased or decreased based on aggregating previous game outcomes placed on the gaming machines. Like the claims in Recentive, the instant claims merely recite the use of generic machine learning applied to a given data environment. The Recentive court determined that claimed methods are not rendered patent eligible by the fact that using existing machine learning technology they perform a task previously undertaken by humans with greater speed and efficiency than could previously be achieved. The courts have consistently held, in the context of computer-assisted methods, that such claims are not made patent eligible under § 101 simply because they speed up human activity. The instant claims encompass presenting wager games and odds that may be searched for, data extraction and comparison. The claims generally encompass the steps of filtering, selecting, determining, extracting, comparing, and adjusting, which are steps that can be done in the human mind. The dependent claims further define the abstract idea by selecting common parameters within a historic database, initiating wager adjustment, displaying odds, etc. These dependent claims include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed. Accordingly, each of Claims 19 to 36 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the additional elements in the claims integrate the abstract idea 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, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 19 and 28 further recite a gaming device, a historic database, and a processor, yet these 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. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. 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 filtering, selecting, determining, extracting, comparing, adjusting, and displaying steps in the claims are deemed to be data gathering and data presentation for the use of the judicial exception and similarly are recited at a high level of generality. Thus, these limitations are a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g), See also selecting a particular source and type of data to be manipulated where “Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Even when the limitations are viewed in combination, the additional elements in this claim do no more than automate the organizing activities 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).
Furthermore, the additional elements do not serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Accordingly, Claims 19 and 28 as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and these claims are directed to the judicial exception. Thus, Claims 19 to 36 lack the eligibility requirements of Step 2 Prong II.
STEP 2B
Finally, under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements:
add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements recite a historic database, gaming device, machine learning, and a processor. These additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable a game to be conducted by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and storing data, (ii) automating mental tasks and (iii) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application.
Additionally, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. While, the specification discusses the use of machine learning, it does not provide any indication that the machine learning themselves are improved in any way. In light of the court decision in Recentive, this is not sufficient to save a claim from abstraction. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
Furthermore, taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 19 and 28 (and their dependent Claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to conduct a game with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For at least the above reasons, the methods of Claims 19 to 36 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 19 to 36 provides meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
Double Patenting
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 timewise 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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/process/ file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 19 to 36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1 to 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,094,171. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims anticipate the more generic or broader claims now pending (instant Claims 19 to 36). That is, the rationale of In re Goodman applies here in that once Applicant has received a patent for a species or a more specific embodiment, Applicant is not entitled to a patent for the generic or broader invention without maintaining common ownership and ensuring that the term of the latter issued patent will expire at the end of the original term of the earlier issued patent.
Claims 19 to 36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1 to 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,734,997. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims anticipate the more generic or broader claims now pending (instant Claims 19 to 36). That is, the rationale of In re Goodman applies here in that once Applicant has received a patent for a species or a more specific embodiment, Applicant is not entitled to a patent for the generic or broader invention without maintaining common ownership and ensuring that the term of the latter issued patent will expire at the end of the original term of the earlier issued patent.
Claims 19 to 36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1 to 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,151,835. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims anticipate the more generic or broader claims now pending (instant Claims 19 to 36). That is, the rationale of In re Goodman applies here in that once Applicant has received a patent for a species or a more specific embodiment, Applicant is not entitled to a patent for the generic or broader invention without maintaining common ownership and ensuring that the term of the latter issued patent will expire at the end of the original term of the earlier issued patent.
Claims 19 to 36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1 to 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,496. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims anticipate the more generic or broader claims now pending (instant Claims 19 to 36). That is, the rationale of In re Goodman applies here in that once Applicant has received a patent for a species or a more specific embodiment, Applicant is not entitled to a patent for the generic or broader invention without maintaining common ownership and ensuring that the term of the latter issued patent will expire at the end of the original term of the earlier issued patent.
Claims 19 to 36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 7 to 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,211,344. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims anticipate the more generic or broader claims now pending (instant Claims 19 to 36). That is, the rationale of In re Goodman applies here in that once Applicant has received a patent for a species or a more specific embodiment, Applicant is not entitled to a patent for the generic or broader invention without maintaining common ownership and ensuring that the term of the latter issued patent will expire at the end of the original term of the earlier issued patent.
AIA Notice
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 19 to 24 and 28 to 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0217278 A1 to Huke et al. (hereinafter Huke).
Regarding Claim 19, (New) Huke discloses a method of adjusting wager odds, comprising:
filtering, by machine learning, a historic database to match a current wager available on a gaming device (paras. [0005] discloses a method for generating odds, for use in a wagering game, which may be generated or adjusted using machine learning and/or artificial intelligence; filtering a historic database to match a current wager),
selecting, by machine learning, a common parameter within historic data in the historic database (paras. [0005] discloses a method for generating odds, for use in a wagering game, selecting a common parameter within historic data in the historic database),
determining, by machine learning, if there is correlated data (paras. [0005] discloses a method for generating odds, for use in a wagering game, which may be generated or adjusted using machine learning and/or artificial intelligence, determining if there is correlated data and the correlated data exceeds a first threshold),
extracting, by machine learning, data points from the correlated data (paras. [0005] discloses a method for generating odds, for use in a wagering game, which may be generated or adjusted using machine learning and/or artificial intelligence, extracting data points from the correlated data that exceeds the first threshold),
comparing, by machine learning, the extracted data points to one or more thresholds (paras. [0005] discloses a method for generating odds, for use in a wagering game, which may be generated or adjusted using machine learning and/or artificial intelligence, comparing the extracted data points to one or more predetermined second thresholds), and
adjusting, by machine learning, the current wager on the gaming device (paras. [0005] discloses a method for generating odds, for use in a wagering game, adjusting a current wager).
Regarding Claim 20, (New) Huke discloses the method of claim 19, further comprising adjusting the current wager available on the gaming device in real time between actions of a live sporting event (paras. [0065], [0069]-[0075]).
Regarding Claim 21, (New) Huke discloses the method of claim 19, further comprising selecting a plurality of common parameters within the historic database and adjusting wagers, by machine learning, for one or more of the common parameters (paras. [0065], [0069]-[0075]).
Regarding Claim 22, (New) Huke discloses the method of claim 19, further comprising displaying the updated odds on a mobile device (paras. [0065], [0069]-[0075]).
Regarding Claim 23, (New) Huke discloses the method of claim 19, further comprising initiating a wager adjustment following the completion of an action in a live sporting event (paras. [0065], [0069]-[0075]).
Regarding Claim 24, (New) Huke discloses the method of claim 19, wherein the correlations are based on situational data in a live sporting event, situational data in one or more previous sporting events, a number of wagers placed with respect to the situational data in the one or more previous sporting events, and amounts of wagers placed with respect to the situational data in the one or more previous sporting events (paras. [0065], [0069]-[0075]).
Regarding Claim 28, (New) Huke discloses a computer-implemented method for providing odds in a game program using game information, comprising executing on a processor (paras. [0006], [0020]) the steps of:
displaying data related to a live event in real time on a gaming device (Claim 8);
displaying one or more wagers related to real time wagering in the live event on the gaming device (Claim 8);
displaying at least one or more factors related to odds adjustment, determined by machine learning, for the one or more wagers on the gaming device (Claim 8); and
displaying one or more adjusted odds for the one or more wagers on the gaming device, wherein the one or more adjusted odds are determined by machine learning (paras. [0005] discloses a method for generating odds, for use in a wagering game, which may be generated or adjusted using machine learning and/or artificial intelligence; Claim 8).
Regarding Claim 29, (New) Huke discloses the computer implemented method for providing odds in a game program using game information of claim 28, further comprising displaying the data related to the live sporting event in real time on a mobile device (Claim 9).
Regarding Claim 30, (New) Huke discloses the computer implemented method for providing odds in a game program using game information of claim 28, further comprising displaying results of any wager placed from the one or more wagers (Claim 10).
Regarding Claim 31, (New) Huke discloses the computer implemented method for providing odds in a game program using game information of claim 28, further comprising displaying situational data related to the live sporting event in real time, wherein the situational data is determined by machine learning (Claim 11).
Regarding Claim 32, (New) Huke discloses the computer implemented method for providing odds in a game program using game information of claim 28, further comprising displaying statistical data related to the live sporting event in real time, wherein the statistical data is determined by machine learning (Claim 12).
Regarding Claim 33, (New) Huke discloses the computer implemented method for providing odds in a game program using game information of claim 28, further comprising displaying at least one of funds and points that are available to wager (Claim 13).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 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 25 to 27 and 34 to 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0217278 A1 to Huke et al. (hereinafter Huke) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0165221 A1 to Alderucci.
Regarding Claim 25, and similarly recited Claim 34, (New) Huke discloses the method of claim 19, but it does not explicitly discloses wherein the machine learning includes at least an unsupervised learning module.
In a related invention, Alderucci discloses wherein the machine learning includes at least an unsupervised learning module (paras. [0092] discloses the neural network may be trained using supervised, unsupervised learning, and reinforced learning techniques, or a combination thereof. With supervised techniques, the neural network is supplied sets of example pairs, e.g., data reading(s) and an indication of the data reading(s) is/are false or true positive, and the neural network infers a mapping implied by the data. With unsupervised techniques, the neural network is supplied with data and the neural network derives therefrom a mapping without the aid of the false or true positive indications, such as based on statistical modeling, filtering, blind source separation, clustering, etc.).
Huke discloses a gaming system that uses machine learning and artificial intelligence to assess and adjust the betting odds for live game wagers before they are presented to users based correlations between various parameters and user betting behavior, and to adjust the betting odds while the betting window is open based on how users are currently betting compared to expected user betting behavior. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the gaming system of Alderucci with the gaming system of Huke as it discloses different types of machine learning used in a gaming environment, and represents an example of what Huke could also use in its system.
Regarding Claim 26, and similarly recited Claim 35, (New) Huke in view of Alderucci discloses the method of claim 25, wherein the machine learning further includes at least a cluster module (Alderucci, paras. [0092]).
Regarding Claim 27, and similarly recited Claim 36, (New) Huke in view of Alderucci discloses the method of claim 25, wherein the machine learning further includes at least a data characterization module (Alderucci, paras. [0092]).
Conclusion
Claims 19-36 are examined above.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and is provided in the Notice of References cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUNA-KAY HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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.
/S.N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715 /DAVID L LEWIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715