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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on May 11, 2026 for the patent application 18/730,451 originally filed on July 19, 2024. Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 9 and 15-16 are amended. Claims 1-16 are pending. The first office action of February 26, 2026 is fully incorporated by reference into this Final Office Action.
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 1-16 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.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claim 1 is directed to “an information processing device” (i.e. “a machine”); claim 15 is directed to “an information processing method” (i.e. “a process”); and claim 16 is directed to “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” (i.e. “a machine”), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to the abstract ideas of “betting,” either in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion), or reasonably in the form of “mathematical concepts,” in terms of processes that can be performed as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations. Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “mental processes;” and/or “mathematical concepts,” which require the following limitations:
Per claim 1:
“accept a bet of a betting ticket specifying a betting content based on an operation to specify a competition for betting by a first user and an operation to specify the betting content for betting for the specified competition,
accept a specification of a first betting ticket from at least one betting ticket bet by the first user,
accept a bet of a second betting ticket that specifies the same betting content as the first betting ticket by reducing necessary input items and a number of input operations upon accepting an operation to specify the first betting ticket by a second user, and
set a dividend ratio of the second betting ticket by adding a first additional dividend ratio to a first basic dividend ratio defined in the second betting ticket when the second user bets on the second betting ticket.”
Per claim 15:
“accepting a bet of a betting ticket specifying a betting content based on an operation to specify a competition for betting by a first user and an operation to specify a betting content for betting for the specified competition,
accepting a specification of a first betting ticket from at least one betting ticket bet by the first user,
accepting a bet of a second betting ticket that specifies the same betting content as the first betting ticket by reducing necessary input items and a number of input operations upon accepting an operation to specify the first betting ticket by a second user; and
setting a dividend ratio of the second betting ticket by adding a first additional dividend ratio to a first basic dividend ratio defined in the second betting ticket when the second user bets on the second betting ticket.”
Per claim 16:
“accepting a bet of a betting ticket specifying a betting content based on an operation to specify a competition for betting by a first user and an operation to specify a betting content for betting for the specified competition,
accepting a specification of a first betting ticket from at least one betting ticket bet by the first user,
accepting a bet of a second betting ticket that specifies the same betting content as the first betting ticket by reducing necessary input items and a number of input operations upon accepting an operation to specify the first betting ticket by a second user; and
setting a dividend ratio of the second betting ticket by adding a first additional dividend ratio to a first basic dividend ratio defined in the second betting ticket when the second user bets on the second betting ticket.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is analogous to “rules are abstract ideas” (i.e. In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); “a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, [without] any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions” (i.e. Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); and “organizing information through mathematical correlations” (i.e. Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the applicants claimed element of “a processor,” is merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying 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, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed ““betting,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a processor,” is claimed, this is a generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing element. As evidence that this is a generic, well-known, and conventional computing element (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses this in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such an additional element to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “a processor,” is described the written description of the specification as originally filed in para. [0037] as follows:
“[0037] The control unit 11 is, for example, a CPU (Central Processing Unit), a microprocessor, a DSP (Digital Signal Processor), etc., and controls the overall operation of the server 10. It is noted that the control unit 11 functions as a “processor” in an example of present embodiment.”
As such, this element is reasonably interpreted as a generic computer which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard off-the-shelf equipment.
Therefore, the Applicant’s own specification is disclosing ubiquitous standard equipment that is (1) generic, routine, conventional, and/or commercially available; and (2) does not provide anything significantly more. Thus, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-14 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on May 11, 2026 related to claims 1-16 are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 112 Rejection
The Applicant respectfully argues “Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b). In response, the claims are amended to address the issues raised, thus mooting the rejection.”
The Examiner respectfully agrees. As such, the argument is persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. §112 rejections are withdrawn.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejection
The Applicant respectfully argues “Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 Alice. In response, the independent claims are amended to more clearly recite a practical application of any abstract idea. In particular, the independent claims are amended to recite (in terms of claim 1) "accept a bet of a second betting ticket that specifies the same betting content as the first betting ticket by reducing necessary input items and a number of input operations upon accepting an operation to specify the first betting ticket by a second user."
The claimed subject matter is directed not merely to the automation of betting rules, but to a specific improvement in the human-machine interface. The claimed subject matter results in a specific user interface that physically reduces the necessary input items and the number of input operations in multi-step, complex input operations, which conventionally required individually specifying betting types (such as "Win" or "Exacta") and betting targets. Thus, the claimed features provide an improvement over the conventional system and bring about the technical effects of not only reducing the user's operation load but also preventing the occurrence of erroneous operations and making the processing load of the entire system more efficient. The specification (at I [0100] and [0101] of the publication) explicitly describes the reduced communication load, reduced server processing load, and reduced power consumption for the user terminals achieved by the claimed subject matter. Because these are technical improvements over the conventional system, the claims recite a practical application under Prong Two of the analysis. The claims are thus patent-eligible under §101. Withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees The Applicant’s argument is misguided as to the proper analysis of a “Practical Application” as required under Step 2A, Prong 2. Specifically, the Applicant’s argument appears to describe claimed utility, which is not the test. Instead, the Applicant’s claims are not considered a “Practical Application,” because the claims do not provide any of the following:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
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, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, there are also several factors that reasonably explain that the Applicant’s claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application, which include:
Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Here, the Applicant’s claims are not providing any technological advancement as described in the first five bulleted factors and, as described above in the rejection, the Applicant’s claims are merely claimed to use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As such, the argument is not persuasive. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 are not withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313)446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Fri. 8:00-4:00. 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.
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights