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 .
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 - 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
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 - 6 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. A system for calculating odds on at least one outcome of at least one action in a sporting event, comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the processor to:
determine available odds in the sporting event using received sporting event data and a probability engine;
calculate odds for a future action in the sporting event using the received sporting event data and at least one odds-making formula;
determine, using artificial intelligence, at least one correlation between the received sporting event data and historical plays that will affect the calculated odds on the future action;
calculate the odds on the future action ; and
offer the calculated odds on the wagering network.
The claims recite italicized limitations that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, namely, Mathematical Concepts and Mental Processes.
More specifically, under this grouping, the italicized limitations represent fundamental economic principles or practices, and managing interactions between people. For example, the italicized limitations are directed towards the determination of wagering odds that are based upon sporting event data and probabilities and presenting the calculated odds on the wagering network. This represents a calculation of odds and probabilities which are mathematical calculations and mental processes. The latter also falls under the concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
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): processor and memories
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 computer processors and memory. 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, applicants specification establishes that these additional elements are generic: [0026] …Conventionally, a classical computer 114 includes at least one processing element, typically a central processing unit (CPU) in the form of a microprocessor, along with some computer memory, typically semiconductor memory chips. The processing element carries out arithmetic and logical operations, and a sequencing and control unit can change the order of operations in response to stored information. Peripheral devices include input devices (keyboards, mice, joystick, etc.), output devices (monitor screens, printers, etc.), and input/output devices that perform both functions (e.g., the 2000s-era touchscreen). Peripheral devices allow information to be retrieved from an external source, and they enable the result of operations to be saved and retrieved.
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 § 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1 - 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huke et al (US 11,127,250)
As per claim 1, Huke discloses:
at least one processor; and (Huke 2:17 - 35)
at least one memory having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the processor to: (Huke 2:17 - 35)
determine available odds in the sporting event using received sporting event data and a probability engine; (Huke 9:37 – 49)
calculate odds for a future action in the sporting event using the received sporting event data and at least one odds-making formula; (Huke 9:50-54)
determine, using artificial intelligence, at least one correlation between the received sporting event data and historical plays that will affect the calculated odds on the future action; (Huke 10:10-23; 14:41-15:21
calculate the odds on the future action ; and (Huke 9:50 – 67; 16:19 – 26)
offer the calculated odds on the wagering network. (Huke 16:19 – 26)
As per claim 2, wherein the at least one memory having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the at least one processor, further causes the processor to assemble the historical play data and the sporting event data to produce at least one set of odds for at least one in-play wager using the probability engine. (Huke 9:36 – 43).
As per claim 3, wherein the odds-making formulas further comprise at least a Primary Odds Calculation formula, a Primary Value Betting formula, a Primary Betting Arbitrage formula, a Betting Bank Unit Stakes formula, a Kelly’s Criterion formula, or a Monte Carlo Simulation formula. (Huke 11:39 – 45)
As per claim 6, further comprises a comparison between the offered odds with at least one actual result from the event. (Huke 9:44 – 49)
Claim(s) 1 – 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by McDonald et al (US 2019/0392684).
As per claim 1, McDonald discloses:
at least one processor; and (McDonald , device of Fig 1)
at least one memory having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the processor to: (McDonald , device of Fig 1)
determine available odds in the sporting event using received sporting event data and a probability engine; (McDonald discloses the use of determined odds upon a sporting event such as posted odds) (McDonald 0009, 0056)
calculate odds for a future action in the sporting event using the received sporting event data and at least one odds-making formula; (McDonald discloses the calculation of odds of a future action based upon the sport event data and a odds formula) (McDonald 0017, 0018, 0022)
determine, using artificial intelligence, at least one correlation between the received sporting event data and historical plays that will affect the calculated odds on the future action; (McDonald discloses the use AI to analyze historical plays and current event data to determine a correlation such as when a choice has won previously based upon the current state of the current event) (McDonald 0050, 0059, 0065, 0066)
calculate the odds on the future action ; and (McDonald discloses the calculation and offering of the odds on the future action) (McDonald 0023)
offer the calculated odds on the wagering network. (McDonald discloses the calculation and offering of the odds on the future action) (McDonald 0023)
As per claim 2, wherein the at least one memory having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the at least one processor, further causes the processor to assemble the historical play data and the sporting event data to produce at least one set of odds for at least one in-play wager using the probability engine. (McDonald discloses the calculation of odds based upon historical data and current sporting event data) (McDonald 0059).
As per claim 3, wherein the odds-making formulas further comprise at least a Primary Odds Calculation formula, a Primary Value Betting formula, a Primary Betting Arbitrage formula, a Betting Bank Unit Stakes formula, a Kelly’s Criterion formula, or a Monte Carlo Simulation formula. (McDonald discloses the use of a primary odds calculation to determine odds) (McDonald 0059).
As per claim 6, further comprises a comparison between the offered odds with at least one actual result from the event. (McDonald discloses the use of an award mechanism to provide payouts based upon wining outcomes compared to the payout odds) (McDonald 0023)
Conclusion
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 6/11/2026
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights