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
Claims 1, 8 and 9 have been amended.
Claims 10 – 12 have been newly added.
Claims 1 and 4 – 12 are currently pending.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 5/15/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 11417176 and US 12020545 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 – 12 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 10. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
This subject matter eligibility analysis follows the latest guidance for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1 and 4 - 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claims 1 and 4 – 12 are drawn to a system.
Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1: Does the Claim recite an Abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Claims 1, 4 – 7 and 10 -12 are exemplary because they require substantially the same operative limitations of the remaining claims (reproduced below.) Examiner has underlined the claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, discussed in detail in the paragraphs that follow.
1. (Currently Amended) A system comprising:
a wager database that is configured to store wagers made on an upcoming action during a live sporting event;
a recording database that is configured to create and store one or more video files that include the upcoming action of the live sporting event related to a placed wager on the upcoming action of the live sporting event;
a wager review module that is configured to:
search the recording database for video files that match at least one play ID in the wager database, wherein each play ID corresponds to a video file segment defined by a respective start time and a respective end time;
extract video files that match the at least one play ID in the wager database from the recording database; and
insert details related to the placed wager into the video file matching the at least one play ID that identifies a video file of the upcoming action in the recording database; and
a base wagering module that associates the at least one play ID with a user when the user places a wager on the upcoming action wherein the base wagering module is configured to determine if an action occurring in the live sporting event is complete using sensor data from a plurality of sensors.
The claims recite italicized limitations that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, namely, Mental Processes
More specifically, under this grouping, the italicized limitations represent concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) . For example, the italicized limitations are directed towards the searching a file storage for files that match some sort of criteria such as play ID that corresponds to a segment with a start and end time, insert details regarding wager details into the file and associating that file with a user when they place a wager.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
Although the claims recite additional limitations, these limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require additional limitations as follow, (emphasis added): various databases such a recording databases, wager databases, clip databases and sensors.
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. Therefore, since the additional limitations, individually or in combination, are indistinguishable from a computer used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, the analysis continues to Step 2B, below.
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, as pointed out above, the claimed invention recites additional elements facilitating implementation of the abstract idea. Applicant has claimed recording databases, wager databases , clip databases and sensors. However, all of these elements viewed individually and 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.
As the Alice court cautioned, citing Flook, patent eligibility cannot depend simply on the draftsman’s art. Here, amending the claims with generic computing elements does not (in this Examiner’s opinion), confer eligibility.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Downes P.E. (US 2003/0199315) establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0029] The wagering system host 10 is the core processing element in the wagering game system, and is adapted to handle wagering, gaming and bettor accounting functions. Host 10 may comprise a conventional microprocessor based system and/or server. The game/wager database 20, account database 30 and performance statistics database 40 are communicatively coupled to host 10, which selectively accesses, maintains, updates and modifies the databases in a conventional manner. It should be appreciated that the wagering system host 10 need not be a single piece of equipment. Host 10 may comprise a combination of disparate devices that operate under together under stored program control to perform the described functions.
[0062] Further, embodiments may include a plurality of sensors 104 that may be used such as motion sensors, temperature sensors, humidity sensors, cameras such as an RGB-D camera which is a digital camera capable of capturing color (RGB) and depth information for every pixel in an image, microphones, radiofrequency receiver, a thermal imager, a radar device, a lidar device, an ultrasound device, a speaker, wearable devices etc. Also, the plurality of sensors may include tracking devices, such as RFID tags, GPS chips or other such devices embedded on uniforms, in equipment, in the field of play, in the boundaries of the field of play, or other markers on the field of play. Imaging devices may also be used as tracking devices such as player tracking that provides statistical information through real-time X, Y positioning of players and X, Y, Z positioning of the ball.
Therefore, these elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at 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. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Moreover, the claims do not recite improvements to another technology or technical field. Nor, do the claims improve the functioning of the underlying computer itself -- they merely recite generic computing elements. Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing: the underlying computing elements remain the same.
Concerning preemption, the Federal Circuit has said in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of cffDNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 8, 9 - 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thukral et al (US 2009/0270166) in view of Thompson et al (US 11,523,161) in view of Marshall et al (US 2008/0182651).
As per claim 1, Thukral discloses:
a wager database that is configured to store wagers made on an upcoming action during a live sporting event; (Thukral discloses the use of a tote system or centralized wagering system that receives and stores wagers upon a next event of a live sporting event) (Thukral 0068 – 0069)
a recording database that is configured to create and store one or more video files that include the upcoming action of the live sporting event related to a placed wager on the upcoming action of the live sporting event; (Thukral discloses a recording database storing a video file or a media stream comprising an integrated data feed comprising the sporting event) (Thukral 0034,0038 0055 – 0057, 0068, 0069)
and a base wagering module that associates the at least one play ID with a user when the user places a wager on the upcoming action wherein the base wagering module is configured to determine if an action occurring in the live sporting event is complete using sensor data from a plurality of sensors.(Thukral discloses the user of the system needs to log in to the system (Thukral 0043) and the user then being able to select which races to view, thus the system associates that race video/stream with the user which they can wager upon (Thukral 0039). Thukral further discloses the use of sensors to determine when an action is complete such as analyzing and comparing the horse or jockey’s performance (i.e. completed action) during a race by means of RFID sensor data detected by RFID sensors) (Thukral 0076)
Thukral fails to disclose the following:
a wager review module that is configured to:
search the recording database for video files that match at least one play ID in the wager database wherein each play ID corresponds to a video file segment defined by a respective start time and a respective end time;
extract video files that match the at least one play ID in the wager database from the recording database: and
insert details related to the placed wager into the video file matching the at least one play ID that identifies a video file of the upcoming action in the recording database; and
However, in a similar field of endeavor wherein a user can wager upon sports games, Thompson discloses fantasy sports system that enables a player to wager upon games, wherein the system will provide video clips or segments to a client device wherein the clips are augmented with further information that is relevant to a user’s33 interests (Thompson 0043). Thompson discloses the use of a video content that is generated wherein the content may be live or delayed actual gameplay, replay, or commentators, fantasy information etc. that may be segmented into clips (Thompson 0049 – 0052). Thompson teaches clips being stored in a clip database (Thompson 0396 – 0397). Thompson further teaches a user making a wager and the system identifying relevant clips related to the player wager (i.e. searching and extracting clips) that correspond to the players identified wager (i.e. play ID) (Thompson 0173, 0548 – 0570, 0572). Thompson further teaches the annotating of the video clips with information related to the placed wager (Thompson 0574).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Thukral in view of Thompson to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to utilize a technique that provides users with video clips that have been searched and extracted based upon matching features of a wager that the user has submitted and annotating the clip to provide the user with more information pertaining to the placed wager. This would be beneficial as Thompson teaches “The techniques described herein provide numerous enhancements that, in some examples, provide fantasy sports scores along with clips and other rich content tailored to the user's fantasy sports team(s) and other interests. For instance, in some examples, a user's fantasy sports points may be provided in association with one or more clips depicting plays or other events that resulted in awarding of the fantasy sports points to the user. “ (Thompson 0044).
In a similar field of endeavor, wherein a user can wager upon sporting events wherein a user can wager upon, for example, a horse race and the system will then ask the user if they would like to save the race they wagered upon in storage (Marshall 0132 – 0134). Marshall further teaches that the storing of save videos that are organized and associated with a play ID in order to be searchable so that the video can be later accessed by a user. Marshall teaches “For example, as shown, stored videos 2406 are displayed listing the track, race number, date and winner of each race. This allows a user to easily find a stored video. Highlight region 706 is currently highlighting the track caption. Sort icon 2408 is pointing down. This indicates that the stored videos are sorted alphabetically by track in ascending order. By selecting the track icon with highlight region 706, the sort order can reversed. If the sort order was reversed, then sort icon 2408 would point up instead of down. The stored videos can also be sorted by any of the other captions, such as by race, date, or name of the winner horse. This may be performed by navigating highlight region 706 to the desired caption and selection that caption. In addition, stored videos 2406 may also be listed according to any other race information associated with the races. For example, stored videos 2406 may be listed according to trainer name, jockey name, the horse name wagered upon, or any other suitable race information. The race information may be obtained from the racing data provided to the interactive wagering application. The race information may be stored with each respective stored video 2406 or separately. Arrow 1104 in window 2402 indicates that additional stored videos 2406 are available.” (Marshall 0137). The video files are also associated with a start and end time as can be seen by the user being able to scrub the video timeline “By selecting and dragging slider 3406, the user may rewind, fast-forward, slow down, or stop the video of the race. Slider 3406 also indicates how much of the video has been displayed and how much of the video remains.” (Marshall 0148)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Thukral and Thompson in view of Marshall to utilize a known technique to modify similar devices in the same way by means of associating stored video clips of wagering plays with a play ID that corresponds to a video file that has a start and end time. This would be beneficial to a user accessing their save files as they would have an intuitive way to efficiently sort and find horse races video clips that are of interest to them when they have wagered upon that particular race.
As per claim 4, wherein the wager database comprises one or more live game IDs, one or more user IDs, and one or more wagers associated with the one or more live game IDs and the one or more user IDs. (Thukral discloses the user specifying or identifying a live game to view (Thukral 0075) and the use of user ID’s that a user utilizes to access the system and place game wagers (Thukral 0039, 0067)
As per claim 5, further comprising: a clip database containing one or more files of live event data combined with wager data. (Combination of Thukral in view of Thompson, wherein Thrukal discloses a replay data bases that combines live replays with wager handicapping data) (Thukral 0077, 0078), Thompson further teaches a user making a wager and the system identifying relevant clips related to the player wager (i.e. searching and extracting clips) that correspond to the players identified wager (i.e. play ID) (Thompson 0173, 0548 – 0570, 0572). Thompson further teaches the annotating of the video clips with information related to the placed wager (Thompson 0574).
Independent claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are made obvious by the combination of Thukral, Thompson and Marshall based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 1, which are similar in claim scope.
As per claim 10 – 12, wherein the action is one of: breaking a huddle in an American football game, snapping a football in an American football game, setting a formation in an American football game, player motion or shifting, a pass is attempted in an American football game, and an initial formation. (Thukral discloses detecting an action such information displayed includes, but is not limited to, current speed, current acceleration, current position, etc., allowing the end user to analyze a horse's or a jockey's performance throughout a race or to compare performances of different horses or jockeys in the same race. (i.e. player motion or shifting)) (Thukral 0076).
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thukral et al (US 2009/0270166) in view of Thompson et al (US 11,523,161) in view of Marshall et al (US 2008/0182651) in view of Coppola et al (US 2021/0027580).
As per claim 6, Thukral fails to disclose:
wherein the video file of the upcoming action includes a user ID associated with the placed wager Coppla et al in a similar field of endeavor discloses a system that creates a replay video for subsequent sharing and viewing at a later time. Coppola discloses that a user’s picture or video (i.e. user ID) is displayed on the video, a graphic associated with the winning wager is displayed (i.e. winning graphic) and details of the placed wager are also displayed (i.e. a play of the game based upon the player’s wager (Coppola 0076, 0079, 0083, 0084, 0085, 0088, 0089, 0112, 0117)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of invention, to modify Thrukal in view of Coppola et al to provide a system wherein a generated replay video comprises a user ID, details about a wager and graphics of the game result. The incorporation of these details would be beneficial as users are sharing replay videos to others electronically, thus ensuring the recipient can clearly identify the sender and provide adequate game information to the view so they are well informed with what is happening in the game.
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thukral et al (US 2009/0270166) in view of Thompson et al (US 11,523,161) in view of Marshall et al (US 2008/0182651) in view of Cleveland et al (US 2020/0111279)
As per claims 7, Thukral discloses the use of timestamps to synchronize media feeds with data feeds to create an integrated interactive feed comprising the media stream and the wagering data (Thukral 0053 – 0055).
However, Thukral fails to disclose specifically the following:
wherein the base wagering module is configured to create a first timestamp at the beginning of the upcoming action upon which a wager can be placed, wherein the first timestamp is made upon closing of a first time window, and a second timestamp associated with settlement of the wager on the upcoming action, wherein the second timestamp is made upon opening of a second time window upon which a wager on a future action subsequent to the upcoming action can be placed, the video file of the upcoming action is based on the first timestamp and the second timestamp, and the base wagering module is configured to store the video file in the recording database.
In a similar field of endeavor, Cleveland et al discloses the use of a gaming system wherein players make wagers to bet on game events. Cleveland discloses a table game wherein events that occur during the course of the game are time stamped. Cleveland discloses “In some embodiments, the table 300 transmits timestamped log message on some or all state change events detected by the table 300 to the table management system server 106 or another logging server. For example, the table 300 may capture a time when the wagering window is opened or closed for the table 300, or a supplementary wagering window is opened or closed for a particular position 602 at the table 300.” (Cleveland 0180)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Thukral in view of Cleveland to provide a game system wherein events such as the beginning and ending of wagering periods are time stamped. This would allow the system to be able to readily identify important events that occur during a game after a game has ended in order to audit events that occur in the game. Time stamping wagering events would also allow the system to determine when wagers are submitted and if they are submitted in a timely manner with respect to the opening and closing of wager windows. (Cleveland 0179)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the prior art rejections of the claims, the Applicant has amended the claims to include the “wherein the base wagering module is configured to determine if an action occurring in the live sporting event is complete using sensor data from a plurality of sensors.” The Examiner notes and directs attention to the above rejection wherein it is noted that Thukral does indeed disclose a system that utilizes sensors and detected sensor data to detect a completed action within a sporting event, specifically if a participant such as a horse or jockey completes a race and their determined statistics at any point of time in the race (Thukral 0076). Examiner maintains the rejection.
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Applicant states:
The amended claims recite "a base wagering module that associates the at least one play ID with a user when the user places a wager on the upcoming action, wherein the base wagering module is configured to determine if an action occurring in the live sporting event is complete via data from a plurality of sensor feeds." This is a specific technological implementation that cannot be performed in the human mind. Determining whether an action occurring in a live sporting event is complete via data from a plurality of sensor feeds requires physical sensors and data processing infrastructure - it is not merely an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. (Remarks page 8).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the barring the use of generic and conventional sensors, a human can utilize manual means such as the powers of observation to observer (i.e. sense) data such as if an action is complete or a position of a player within a game and analyze that observation and make a judgment regarding it, such as if the action is completed or what the result of that action was. The Applicant further goes on to state that “Thus, the claims are not merely applying an abstract idea using generic computers-they require specific sensor infrastructure to monitor live sporting events and determine action completion.” (Remarks page 9). The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the Applicant is merely claiming generic and conventional “sensors” to detect data. The Applicant is not claiming a specific technological “sensor infrastructure” that provides a specific improvement to functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a), but rather the newly added limitation appears to amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g). The Examiner maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5911. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 4pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/RAW/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
7/29/2026
/KANG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights