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 § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 to 6, 9 to 11, 13 to 16, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nicora (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2009/0191929 A1).
As to Claims 1 and 11: Nicora teaches a method of operating a multi-sport challenge system, the method comprising (players playing parallel simulated golf games at separate simulated golf courses simultaneously, Abst., Fig. 1, Paras. 24 & 25, Claim 1):
providing a multi-sport facility including a plurality of sport grounds (players playing parallel simulated golf games at separate simulated golf courses simultaneously, Abst., Fig. 1, Paras. 24 & 25, Claim 1), wherein each of the sport grounds includes a full sport grounds, partial sport grounds, sport simulator grounds, or combination thereof (Nicora teaches players playing against each other in a tournament over multiple golf course simulators connected to each other over the Internet or other network, Figs. 1 and 8, Paras. 24 to 26. The examiner is interpreting the claim language broadly, there are plural sport simulator grounds cited in Nicora. The types of sports facilities, full, partial, and simulated are cited in the alternative, reducing the patentable weight of any individual alternative, and the claim language does not cite that different types of sport facilities are necessarily used in combination such as by citing “two or more of” the different types of sport facilities. Plural sport simulator grounds such as those of Nicora thus meet the claim language.);
providing a plurality of different selectable sport challenges to attempt through interaction with the sport grounds corresponding to the selected sport challenge sport, each sport challenge having an associated entry fee for an opportunity to attempt the sport challenge and an associated financial prize to be awarded if the attempt successfully performs the sport challenge (player entered into game, Fig. 2, Paras. 29 & 30; menu displayed at Fig. 3, Paras. 31 & 32, entry fee paid, Para. 29; prize for winning player paid out, Paras. 29 & 31);
receiving sport challenge selections made by participants (player entered into game, Fig. 2, Paras. 29 & 30; menu displayed at Fig. 3, Paras. 31 & 32, entry fee paid, Para. 29);
facilitating a wager among or between parties, wherein the wager includes defined terms pertaining to the selected sport challenge (entry fee paid, Para. 29; prize for winning player paid out, Paras. 29 & 31);
collecting the associated entry fees for the selected sport challenges (player entered into game, Fig. 2, Paras. 29 & 30; menu displayed at Fig. 3, Paras. 31 & 32, entry fee paid);
and distributing the associated financial prize to participants upon their successful performance of the selected sport challenges (entry fee paid, Para. 29; prize for winning player paid out, Paras. 29 & 31).
As to Claims 3 and 13: Nicora teaches wherein the parties include the participants, non-participants, or a combination thereof (participants enter the tournament in an attempt to win winnings, Paras. 28 and 29).
As to Claims 4 and 14: Nicora teaches wherein facilitating the wager between parties further comprises facilitating a wager agreement between two or more participants to compete in the sport challenge, wherein the defined terms of the wager include a first participant agreeing to pay the financial prize to a second participant if the second participant successfully performs the sport challenge and the second participant agreeing to pay the financial prize to the first participant if the second participant fails to perform the sport challenge (participants enter the tournament in an attempt to win winnings, Paras. 28 and 29; there can be a two-layer tournament, Para. 31; the first participant will thus pay to the second participant if the second participant winds, and the second participant will thus pay to the first participant if the second participant does not win (first participant wins)).
As to Claims 5 and 15: Nicora teaches wherein the defined terms of the wager further include the second participant agreeing to pay the financial prize to the first participant if the first participant successfully performs the sport challenge and the first participant agreeing to pay the financial prize to the second participant if the first participant fails to perform the sport challenge (participants enter the tournament in an attempt to win winnings, Paras. 28 and 29; there can be a two-player tournament, Para. 31; the second participant will thus pay to the first participant if the first participant winds, and the first participant will thus pay to the second participant if the first participant does not win (second participant wins)).
As to Claims 6 and 16: Nicora teaches wherein the sport challenge is the same or different for the respective participants (the participants of Nicora are playing the same sport, golf, Abst., Para. 28, Claim 1).
As to Claims 7 and 17: wherein facilitating the wager between parties further comprises facilitating an agreement between a participant and non-participant, wherein the defined terms include the non-participant agreeing to pay the financial prize to the participant if the participant successfully performs the sport challenge and the participant agreeing to pay the financial prize to the non-participant if the participant fails to successfully perform the sport challenge.
As to Claims 8 and 18: wherein facilitating the wager between parties further comprises facilitating an agreement between a two or more non-participants, wherein the defined terms include a first non-participant agreeing to pay the financial prize to a second non-participant if the participants successfully perform the sport challenge and the second non-participant agreeing to pay the financial prize to the first non-participant if the participants fail to successfully perform the sport challenge.
As to Claims 9 and 19: Nicora teaches wherein the method further comprises: determining and setting odds of success in successfully performing the selected sport challenge, wherein the odds determine one or more terms of the defined terms of the wager and determine the distribution of the associated financial prize (handicaps calculated at Para. 28, these are based on individual details pertaining to individual players such as average shot distance with a particular club, the wagerors will necessarily consider these handicaps in their wagers since the handicaps and scores re displayed in real time at Para. 28).
As to Claims 10 and 20: Nicora teaches wherein the odds are determined based on characteristic classifications, individual details, or a combination thereof with respect to the participants (handicaps calculated at Para. 28, these are based on individual details pertaining to individual players such as average shot distance with a particular club, the wagerors will necessarily consider these handicaps in their wagers since the handicaps and scores re displayed in real time at Para. 28).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicora in view of Odom (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2017/0098348 A1).
As to Claims 7, 8, 17, and 18: Nicora teaches all of the limitations of these claims, but lacks specificity as to wagers between players and non-players, or between non-players as claimed. Odom, however, teaches wagers between non-players or non-participants (“spectators”, Para. 11), as well as between players and non-players/”spectators” (wagers between participants, spectators, the exchange, or any combination of the three, Para. 11). These wagers may be made for a golf tournament (Para. 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Odom’s wagers to the golf tournament wagering system of Nicora. Nicora is a golf tournament wagering system in which players enter by paying an entry fee and competing for winnings as described above (Paras. 24 to 26, 29 to 30). Nicora displays the scores and handicaps to the spectators in real time (Para. 28), so the spectators would have ample opportunity to to wager on the tournament if so desired. The two references are thus similar in mode of operation and field of use. The advantage of this modification would be to allow spectators to wager either between themselves or between themselves and players, making the tournament more interactive by offering wagering opportunities as opposed to simply watching the tournament.
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 to 20 (independent Claims 1 and 10, and their dependent claims) 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. The claims are drawn to a method and a system, and so are statutory classes under 101 (step 1 of the 101 analysis). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the following reasons. Independent Claim 1 is representative and is reproduced below; the abstract idea is underlined and the structural limitations are not. The dependent claims have no more structure than the independent claim and fail 101 for similar reasons.
A method of operating a multi-sport challenge system, the method comprising: (processing data according to the rules of a game)
providing a multi-sport facility including a plurality of sport grounds, wherein each of the sport grounds includes a full sport grounds, partial sport grounds, sport simulator grounds, or combination thereof; (processing data according to the rules of a game, the physical facilities are cited in the alternative reducing their patentable weight individually, and simply providing physical structures or facilities appears to be unrelated to the underlying wager or what it termed extra-solution activity)
providing a plurality of different selectable sport challenges to attempt through interaction with the sport grounds corresponding to the selected sport challenge sport, each sport challenge having an associated entry fee for an opportunity to attempt the sport challenge and an associated financial prize to be awarded if the attempt successfully performs the sport challenge; (processing data according to the rules of a game, the physical facilities are cited in the alternative reducing their patentable weight individually, and simply providing physical structures or facilities appears to be unrelated to the underlying wager or what it termed extra-solution activity)
receiving sport challenge selections made by participants; (accepting input from users, processing data according to the rules of a game)
facilitating a wager among or between parties, wherein the wager includes defined terms pertaining to the selected sport challenge; (accepting input from users, processing data according to the rules of a game)
collecting the associated entry fees for the selected sport challenges; and (accepting input from users, processing data according to the rules of a game)
distributing the associated financial prize to participants upon their successful performance of the selected sport challenges. (processing data according to the rules of a game, outputting the result of the game data, game rules, and users’ input to the users)
Regarding revised step 2A, prong 1 of the 101 analysis, the claims do not cite a law of nature or a natural phenomenon. The claims do cite an abstract idea—that being the organization of a human activity in the form of wagering. The wagering takes the form of providing a plurality of selectable sport challenges, receiving sport challenge selections, facilitating a wager between parties, collecting the entry fees, and distributing the prizes as cited in Claim 1 (preamble, third to seventh clauses of Claim 1). Regarding the second clause of Claim 1, this clause provides sports facilities in the alternative: full sports grounds, partial sports grounds, and sport simulator grounds, or a combination thereof. Claim 1 does not cite how these structures are used, exactly what structures they are, what sports they pertain to, or how these structures, interact with the rest of the claim limitations. The examiner’s overall conclusion about this claim is that the claim is drawn to organizing a human activity in the form of a wager, and thus pertains to an abstract idea. Mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, or calculations are not cited. Concepts performed in the human mind such as observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion are not cited. Fundamental economic principles or practices or managing personal behavior are not cited.
A commercial interaction in the form of accepting a wager is recited, so the claims cite the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing a human activity— providing a plurality of selectable sport challenges, receiving sport challenge selections, facilitating a wager between parties, collecting the entry fees, and distributing the prizes as cited in Claim 1 (preamble, third to seventh clauses of Claim 1). The claims as represented by independent Claims 1 and 11 recite a method of operating a multi-sport challenge facility where participants select from various sport challenges, pay entry fees, attempt physical feats at different sports grounds/simulators, and receive financial prizes upon successful completion. The claims encompass the business operations, facility management, wager facilitation, fee collection, and prize distribution associated with this entertainment venue. The abstract idea is the business method of facilitating wagered competitions with entry fees and prize distribution—a fundamental economic/commercial concept of collecting fees, managing contests, and distributing rewards. This is analogous to ideas rejected in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (financial transactions) and Bilski v. Kappos (business methods). The answer to step 2A, prong 1 is thus yes.
Regarding revised step 2A, prong 2 of the 101 analysis, the claims do not recite any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception of an abstract idea to a practical application. It is not integrated into a practical application, specifically: The claims recite specific physical sport grounds (baseball fields, bowling lanes, basketball courts, golf holes, etc.) and simulators. However, these are recited at a high level of generality and function primarily as a venue/setting where the abstract business method is performed, rather than as a technical solution to a technical problem. The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer (MPEP 2106.05(a). The claims do not effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis of a disease or medical condition (Vanda memo). The claims do not apply the judicial exception to a particular machine (MPEP 2016.05(b)). The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)). The claims do not go beyond generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo). The claims generically link the claimed wager method to generic sports facilities (a particular technological environment) as discussed above. The claims do not cite particular input, processor, memory, or output structures or functionality, such as a specific wagering device or network of wagering devices. The answer to revised step 2A, prong 2 is thus no.
Regarding step 2B of the 101 analysis, the claims do not cite any additional limitations that amount to anything significantly more than the judicial exception. The abstract idea does NOT amount to significantly more because it is not tied to a particular machine, specifically: While the claims mention “sport simulator grounds,” there is insufficient technical detail regarding how the simulators operate, what technical improvements they provide, or how they solve a technological problem. The simulators are mentioned generically without claim limitations addressing their technical functionality, programming, or hardware innovations. The claims do not recite specific technical components, algorithms, or improvements to simulator technology itself. The answer to step 2B is no, so the claims are not 101-eligible. The claims generically link the claimed wager method to generic sports facilities (a particular technological environment) as discussed above. The claims do not cite particular input, processor, memory, or output structures or functionality, such as a specific wagering device or network of wagering devices. These reasons are similar to those of step 2A, prong 2 (MPEP 2106.05(a),(b),(c),(d),(e) and the Vanda memo). The examiner has reviewed the specification and has no suggestion at this time as to how to amend the claims for 101.
The latest 101 guidance is found at https://ptoweb.uspto.gov/patents/exTrain/documents/101-2019-peg-advanced-module.pptx regarding the 2019 streamlined 101 analysis.
The examiner discusses dependent Claims 2 and 12, with Claim 2 being representative. The abstract idea is underlined, with the structures not being underlined.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sport grounds comprise at least three different types of sport grounds, each hosting at least one of the sport challenges, and wherein the at least three different types of sport grounds and the at least one corresponding at least one sport challenge hosted by the sport grounds are selected from the group consisting of:
at least a partial baseball field that hosts one or more sport challenges comprising successfully throwing a ball from a specified area of the baseball field and hitting a target, obtaining a ball speed at or above a specified speed, or hitting a target at a ball speed at or above a specified speed,
a bowling lane that hosts a sport challenge comprising successfully bowling a ball down the bowling lane to score a strike,
at least a partial basketball court including a basketball goal that hosts a sport challenge comprising successfully shooting a basketball through the basketball goal from one or more specified locations of the at least partial basketball court,
at least a partial baseball field or baseball simulator that hosts a sport challenge comprising successfully hitting an actual or simulated baseball with a baseball bat,
a par 3 golf hole that hosts one or more sport challenges comprising successfully hitting a golf ball from a tee box of the par 3 golf hole and scoring a hole-in-one or positioning the golf ball within a specified distance from a golf hole,
a golf simulator that hosts one or more sport challenges comprising successfully hitting a golf ball a specified distance or greater or positioning the golf ball onto a simulated green or within a specified distance from a simulated golf hole of the simulated green,
at least a partial American football field including uprights that hosts a sport challenge comprising successfully kicking a football through the uprights,
at least a partial soccer field including a soccer goal or target that hosts one or more sport challenges comprising successfully kicking a soccer ball into the soccer goal, hitting the target, or hitting the target in the soccer goal,
a full or partial tennis court or tennis simulator that hosts a sport challenge comprising successfully serving a tennis ball to a target location,
and a full or partial pickleball court or pickleball simulator that hosts a sports challenge comprising successfully serving or returning a pickleball to a target location, within a ball speed range, above a ball speed, or combination thereof.
There are a number of 101 consideration for dependent Claims 2 and 12. 1) The number of sports challenges to be completed is cited as at least three; the total number that can be completed based on Claims 2 and 12 is up to ten maximum. The individual number of sports challenges to be completed has little weight since it is cited in the alternative. The number of sports challenges to be completed is between three and ten, with each of the numbers between three and ten inclusive being cited in the alternative the way these claims are worded.
2) Also, the types of sports facilities are cited in the alternative, to the patentable weight of any of the individual types sports is reduced since each facility is interchangeable with the others for purposes of these claims.
3) Each of the claim clauses citing the individual types of sports facilities has little or no definition of what or how many structures are considered to define the type of sports facility for its respective sport. Structures such as size (meters or yards), game-specific structures such as goal posts, soccer goals, basketball baskets, bases and mounds, bowling alleys, surfaces (grass, clay, concrete, wood, etc.) are not cited. The only clauses that have any definition of the sports facilities structures are the fourth (basketball), eighth (American football), and ninth (soccer) clauses of Claim 2.
4) Any sports facility can “host” sports activity—practice, regular season games, informal pickup games, tournaments, championships, etc. The hosting as claimed is no more than a statement of intended use.
The examiner thus believes that dependent Claims 2 and 12, and the rest of the dependent claims have no more patentability under 101 than the independent claims. The examiner believes that the structures of Claims 2 and 12 are extra-solution in nature relative to what the independent claims are claiming as patentable. Claims 2 and 12 were analyzed since they cited game structures in a passing, but not meaningful manner.
The claims are nothing more than parlay bets such as one-of-three, two-of-three, three-of-three, etc. (Hamman, et al. define parlay bets as multiple wagers combined, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0294362, Para. 174, this definition of parlay is typical in the wagering arts). The claims are fundamentally methods the abstract idea of organizing human activity in the form of a wager.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D HOEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5961. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 A.M.-4:30 P.M..
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.
/M.D.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights