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 amendments entered on July 19, 2024 for the patent application 18/730,451 originally filed on July 19, 2024. Claim 16 is amended. Claims 1-16 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on July 19, 2024 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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:
“accepts 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,
accepts a specification of a first betting ticket from at least one betting ticket bet by the first user,
accepts a bet of a second betting ticket that specifies the same betting content as the first betting ticket by accepting an operation to specify the first betting ticket by a second user, and
sets 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:
“accepts 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,
accepts a specification of a first betting ticket from at least one betting ticket bet by the first user,
accepts a bet of a second betting ticket that specifies the same betting content as the first betting ticket by accepting an operation to specify the first betting ticket by a second user, and
sets 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:
“a process that accepts 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,
a process that accepts a specification of a first betting ticket from at least one betting ticket bet by the first user,
a process that accepts a bet of a second betting ticket that specifies the same betting content as the first betting ticket by accepting an operation to specify the first betting ticket by a second user, and
a process that sets 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 15 and 16 recite the limitation “a processor,” repeatedly This limitation is originally introduced in claim 15 and 16, respectively. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “[[a]] the processor”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 15 and 16. Therefore, claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 contain allowable subject matter. The closest prior art of record is U.S. PG Pub. 2022/0020243 to Haishima. However, Haishima does not explicitly teach: “the processor accepts a bet of a second betting ticket that specifies the same betting content as the first betting ticket by accepting an operation to specify the first betting ticket by a second user, and the processor sets 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 1, or substantially similar limitations in claims 15 and 16. Therefore, claims 1-16 are allowable subject matter, if no other statutory rejections remain. In the present case, claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 and claims 15-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b).
Conclusion
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 Monday through Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. 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 http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715