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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, “information about a wagering opportunities” should be corrected to ---information about wagering opportunities---.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-16 recites the limitation "the system of claim [14, 15]". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the parent claims are method claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Overview:
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to gathering [sports wagering] data, filtering it, analyzing it, and presenting results in a human-comprehensible format -- activities rooted in mental processes and that have repeatedly been held by the courts to be directed to abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Browsing and considering available sports wagering options and recommending wagers to others are abstract mental activities long-known to be performed by a human being in the role of a handicapper. The claims are drafted using result-oriented language that lists outcomes desired to be obtained from operating generic computers. No technical details are provided describing what hardware, software or system architecture are configured for accomplishing the claimed outcomes, such as what hardware a curation engine is supported by and what programming steps configure it to gather, filter, analyze or output data.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) describes that the phrase, “mental processes” is used to describe:
a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). … examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. …
As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
And in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016), "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, were held to be abstract.
For the above reasons, which will be described in further detail below, claims 1-20 are held to be directed to abstract mental processes without significantly more.
Detailed Analysis
The following detailed analysis is based on the subject matter eligibility examination guidelines provided in the MPEP at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html
Steps 1 and 2 of the analysis have been conducted for all of the pending claims.
Step 1 (See MPEP §2106.03): In this step, it is determined whether the pending claims are directed to at least one of the four statutory categories of subject matter. Here it is determined that all of the pending claims fall into statutory categories. The claims meet step 1 as follows:
Claims 1-8 recite a machine (system)
Claims 9-17 recite a process (method)
Claims 18-20 recite an article of manufacture (computer-readable media).
Step 2A, Prong 1 (see MPEP 2106.04(I)): In this step of the analysis, judicial exception(s) that fall into one or more of the abstract idea groupings enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a) are identified.
The claims recite the following judicial exceptions:
“Mental Processes” (See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Observing existing sports wagering information that is available over a generic computer network, evaluating and making judgments regarding pertinent data, analyzing the data and conveying results of the analysis are activities traditionally performed by human beings – these are activities traditionally performed by a person known as a handicapper. The claims do not recite any particulars of how computers are programmed to process or analyze existing wagering data, such as by using some particular model, or how computers are programmed to generate outputs. The claims are essentially a list of functionally-recited desired end results for generic data analysis in a field of use. The claims do not delineate steps through which any particular network architecture, programming operations or data model achieves an improvement, for example.
Support for why the pending claimed invention is directed to abstract mental processes can be found in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016), wherein "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, were held to be abstract.
The following limitations of claim 1 are directed to judicial exceptions. Claim 1 is representative, independent claims 9 and 18 rise and fall with claim 1:
cause curation to perform operations comprising: receive gaming information … analyze the gaming information to determine one or more gaming parameters; generate, based upon the one or more gaming parameters, a curated natural language expression detailing the gaming selection; and provide the curated natural language expression to the sports wagering kiosk.
Collecting information, analyzing it and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, wherein the steps are recited at a high level of generality has been held to fall into the grouping of mental processes in Electric Power Group v. Alstom. The claims do not recite any details of computer programming steps or details of the type or use of a particular machine learning model or any tangible improvements to computers or to a machine learning model or the field of machine learning. The claims are essentially a list of functionally-recited desired end results for a conceived field of use for natural language processing and machine learning. As such the claimed ideas for collecting sports wagering data, filtering it, analyzing it and presenting results in a natural language format (wherein there are no details as to how the analysis occurs or what constitutes the natural language expressions or what software/hardware are used to generate them and how) are held to be abstract equivalents of human mental work.
Step 2A, Prong 2: In this step, any additional elements beyond the identified abstract ideas are identified and evaluated for any integration into a practical application. In particular, any claimed technological improvement is considered.
Additional elements recited in the claims include:
a sports wagering kiosk; a network (in claim 1); a remote device (in claim 9); a processor (in claim 18)
These hardware components are recited at a high level of generality and merely outline a generic technological field in which to apply the abstract advertising, marketing, sales, and accounting practices the claims through routine and conventional use of generic hardware, and using some implied software of unclaimed programming. The instant disclosure’s silence as to any of the claimed hardware having any nonobvious structural or functional specifications or requirements or being used to solve any stated problems existing in computers per se or to provide any improvements to computers per se supports a finding that the hardware additional elements of the claimed apparatus comprises merely generic components and technologies used in their routine and conventional capacities in the art. “[T]he invocation of ‘already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance … amounts to a recitation of what is well-understood, routine, and conventional.” Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2020). And “simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea […] does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Affinity Labs v. DirectTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
display information about wagering opportunities; generate … a curated natural language expression detailing the game selection, provide the curated natural language expression to the sports wagering kiosk; (in claim 1)
Displaying existing information is a form of insignificant post-solution activity. As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). In Flook, the Court reasoned that “[t]he notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance.”
And to the extent generic computers are used to display or deliver content, in Bascom, the district court found that “content provided on the Internet is not fundamentally different from content observed, read, and interacted with through other mediums like books, magazines, television, or movies.” The court in Bascom found that no inventive concept existed when delivering content was performed using a “well-known, generic computer component [ ]” or a standard filtering mechanism. Id. at 654.
receive wagering opportunities; a curation engine to receive gaming information; (in claim 1)
These limitations comprise insignificant pre-solution data gathering including data provided in a certain format that is well-known in the art. This data merely exists as input to a human mental process for sports handicapping. There is no particular hardware or software required of the claimed “curation engine”, which serves as evidence that this is a name given to some software module of unclaimed programming operations run on some general-purpose processor for conducting data gathering to support an abstract idea.
transmit a request for a natural language expression describing the wagering opportunities (in claim 1); the gaming information is metadata… (claims 2, 10); the gaming information is at least one of a commonly placed bet or comprises older data (claims 4, 12); the gaming information is at least one of real-time data… (claims 6, 14, 20).
These limitations are directed to the particular format, payload or attributes of data (equivalent to claims to “data per se”). As indicated in MPEP § 2106.03, data per se and software per se do not belong to a statutory category of invention. When considered as an additional element under the Alice analysis, then, matters of data per se cannot impart eligibility to judicial exceptions.
Additionally, restricting data in a claim to a particular type or content is also seen as filtering gathered data, which has been held in Bascom Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349, 119 USPQ2d 1236, to represent an abstract idea of the grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity” because interacting with a database and selecting certain data by generic computers is not fundamentally different from human beings interacting with printed content. “[f]iltering software, apparently composed of filtering schemes and filtering elements, was well-known in the prior art” and “using ISP servers to filter content was well-known to practitioners.”
Claims 3, 11, 19 comprise result-oriented language stating to use templates, a ML model or a combination to generate NL expression. Claim 17 states that the machine learning model of the parent claim is a generative machine learning model (claim 17).
These claims merely recite the use of generic machine learning in a particular environment (sports wagering) without reciting any details of how machine learning is implemented (such as how inputs are handled, how the model is trained, how inferences are made, how outputs are generated). As such the claims fail to recite any particular improvements to the field of machine learning. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently found, in the suits against Fox Corp. Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC and Fox Sports Productions, LLC, that when claims merely use machine learning to claim an abstract idea itself by “using a generic machine learning technique in a particular environment,” this is a failure to transform the claimed abstract idea into “significantly more” – there is “no inventive concept.” The CAFC opinion concluded with a note that, “[m]achine learning is a burgeoning and increasingly important field and may lead to patent-eligible improvements in technology.” The court explained that its instant opinion held “only that patents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101.” Claiming some generative machine learning model having no particular details for how it is trained or how it makes inferences or generates outputs is seen as using a generic machine learning technique in a particular environment.
Claims 5 and 13 comprise result-oriented language expressing ideas in general for accessing an index, retrieve a template, and generate an NL expression. Claims 7-8 and 15-16 comprise result-oriented language expressing ideas, generally, for generating and analyzing feature vectors, with no details provided of how these vectors are defined or implemented in software, and retrieving, providing templates having no definition as to how they are structured or defined.
No technical details are provided as to what software operations or hardware configurations are used to obtain these results. “the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea […] does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Affinity Labs v. DirectTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016 attributing particular generic computer functions for computer hardware to perform from well-known, routine, conventional functions performed by such hardware has been held to be insufficient to show an improvement to technology, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Regarding the claimed index, template, and feature vectors that exist in in the claims in name only, with no description of how they are calculated or generated, the application of an abstract idea to a particular type of data has been held to be insignificant extra solution activity. See, e.g., Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (limiting use of abstract idea to the Internet); Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (limiting use of abstract idea to use with XML tags). And generating expressions intended to be in a natural language form, without any details claimed as to how computers achieve this result, is insignificant post-solution activity.
The preceding additional elements, considered alone and in the context of the claims, do not integrate the abstract game management or game rules into a practical application that improves computer functionality or another technology. They:
Invoke generic computers, memories, and conventional networked game environments. See where the instant specification discloses a standard CPU, input, display, storage, server, etc. (e.g., on p. 18-19 that admits the invention could be implemented on a smart phone or personal computer and using existing machine learning models.) “[T]he invocation of ‘already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance … amounts to a recitation of what is well-understood, routine, and conventional.” Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2020). And “simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea […] does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Affinity Labs v. DirectTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
Do not recite a specific improvement to the functioning of a computer (e.g., no improved rendering pipeline, no reduced latency synchronization protocol, no novel memory management, no graphics or physics engine enhancement).
Do not effect a transformation of an article.
Are drafted as applying the abstract idea in the field of sports wagering (field-of-use) with result-oriented language (e.g., “receive,” “analyze”, generate”, “provide”).
With regard to interpreting result-oriented claim language when performing a 35 USC §101 analysis, see Beteiro LLC v. DraftKings Inc., (Fed. Cir 2024) when "the claims are drafted using largely (if not entirely) result-focused functional language, containing no specificity about how the purported invention achieves these results. Claims of this nature are almost always found to be ineligible for patenting under Section 101." See also Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL Inc. (896 F.3d 1335) wherein the court found that claims to a computer software "attention manager" that displays content on unused portions of a screen were result-oriented and invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they did not recite a specific technological method for achieving the claimed result; Contour IP Holding LLC v. GoPro, Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 22825 (Fed. Cir. 2024): The court held that claims must not only describe desired outcomes but also include a specific process or machinery for achieving that result; In re Killian, 45 F.4th 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2022): The court reaffirmed that claims simply reciting a desired result without specifying how to achieve it are directed to an abstract idea and are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims at issue were directed to analyzing data from two databases. In the Step Two of the Alice test, the court determined that there was no inventive concept because the additional elements merely involved generic and routine data gathering and analysis steps that could have been performed with or without a computer.
MPEP § 2106.05(f) explains that, “The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it"”.
The pending claims do not include any technical description of mechanisms for accomplishing the claimed results. Instead, the claims use some unspecified computer and unspecified programming to conduct generic, result-oriented steps such as “transmit a request,” “receive gaming information”, “analyze the gaming information”, “provide the curated natural language expression” for performing equivalents of mental processes known to be performed by a sports betting handicapper. The claims seek to cover any system and any method (such as any hardware devices, any programming instructions, any natural language model, any natural language outputs, any templates) for applying the abstract ideas for sports handicapping. As such the claims are found to be directed to ineligible subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 2 concludes in a determination that the additional elements do not amount to a practical application of the claimed abstract ideas.
Step 2B: In this step of the Alice analysis, it is assessed whether additional elements amount to significantly more than abstract ideas. Any well-understood, routine, conventional (“WURC”) activity is also discussed along with evidentiary considerations.
Absent integration into a practical application, the claims lack “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Additional elements that are generic computer implementation and conventional components are:
“kiosk”, “memory”
The specification characterizes these computing components as conventional computing hardware and software performing ordinary functions (spec. [0018]-[0019]), supporting a finding that the implementation is well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC). See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (WURC must be supported); here, the instant specification itself indicates conventionality.
Conclusion:
Claims 1-20 are found to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Although step 1 is satisfied (the claims recite manufacture/process/machine), in Step 2A Prong 1, the claims are found to recite an abstract idea—collecting sports wagering data, analyzing it, and outputting results of the analysis, wherein this is activity rooted in human mental observation, opinion and judgement traditionally performed by a sports handicapper. And as found in Step 2A Prong 2, the abstract ideas are not integrated into a practical application; only generic computer implementation and field-of-use limitations are claimed. There are no technical details in the claims that reveal how any of the claimed result-oriented language is to be accomplished. And performing Step 2B, there is nothing “significantly more” found beyond WURC elements as evidenced by the specification.
Possible remedies:
To improve subject matter eligibility under 35 USC § 101, it is recommended to anchor the claims to concrete, non-generic technical mechanisms (such as particular software processes, methods of training particular models, or nonobvious system architectures) in a way that there is evidence in the claims of certain improvements to computer or network operations or to another technology.
In the field of the instant invention (natural language processing and data analysis optionally using machine learning), an improvement would have to be found to an inherently technical problem existing in computers and would have to reveal how the computer(s) themselves or the field of machine learning are improved as a direct result of the claimed invention. The details of the improvement to computers cannot be found in the wording of the abstract ideas (details of data collection, analysis or outputting that are equivalents of pre-digital era human mental work) themselves. Genetic Techs v Merial, an inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature" itself. A subjective improvement in a game player’s user experience (by providing a game that might provide arguably unique rules) is not an improvement to computers themselves or to computer technology and does not solve any stated problem that is inherently technical in nature.The court ruled in International Business Machines Corporation v. Zillow Group, Inc., (CAFC, 17 October, 2022), that "improving a user's experience while using a computer application is not, without more, sufficient to render the claims" patent-eligible. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
Examples might include to:
Tie abstract steps to a specific, non-generic technological implementation that improves computer functionality or another technology in some tangible way (e.g., reduces network latency by X, improves memory utilization via Y, improves image fidelity through Z), with technical mechanisms claimed.
Provide evidence of improvements to computers or network operations in the claims by claiming certain network nonobvious server-side architecture that is also claimed as solving problems existing in the art, or claiming a certain improvement in rendering such as a GPU-accelerated improvement that provides measurable improvements to game functionality.
Add claim elements showing a particular machine or a transformation of an article, beyond mere data manipulation or display functions.
Replace result-oriented terms (“receive”, “analyze,” “generate,” with concrete steps and parameters tied to the technical mechanism (e.g., explicit algorithmic operations, message formats, timing constraints, thresholds).
Limit scope to a specific technological field and architecture (e.g., “a distributed game server cluster employing [named protocol] with defined message cadence and buffer management”) and claim the architecture itself, avoiding broad “apply it on a computer” formulations.
Provide specification support demonstrating the asserted improvements are not well-understood, routine and conventional:
Implementation details: algorithms with stepwise operations, data structures with constraints, hardware configurations, protocol diagrams.
Performance evidence: benchmarks, latency/throughput graphs, memory usage comparisons versus baselines.
Engineering rationale: why existing approaches fail and how your mechanism achieves measurable gains.
Recite in the claims a technical solution to a technological problem (e.g., secure hardware-backed attestations, novel protocol flows, improved cryptographic operations, sensor fusion pipelines).
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, 12, 14-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2024/0367054 A1 to Nelson et al.
Re claim 1, Nelson discloses: A system comprising: a sports wagering kiosk operable to receive wagering opportunities and display information about a wagering opportunities,
[0074], the gaming devices 108 of the system of Nelson may present sports wagering for selection and play by the player.
[0234], the EGM can comprise “a sports betting terminal, or a kiosk, such as a sports betting kiosk”
wherein the sports wagering kiosk is further operable to transmit a request for a natural language expression describing the wagering opportunities via a network;
[0041], an illustrative natural language message received by a player and processed by a conversation model can include “Can I wager $25.00?” or “What was the largest win today?”
[0042], the invention of the disclosure comprises self-evolving AI-based conversation models that can respond intelligently to natural language communications received from players of the gaming device in the form of texts, emails, chats, social network posts, APPLE messages, FACEBOOK messenger, WHAT’S APP or other custom messaging services.
[0059] Casino-environment specific NL models can evolve based on gameplay events, gameplay operations, gameplay outcomes, wager behavior, biometric data, etc. Input data to the model can include real time player gameplay decisions and behavior.
[0105], natural language player commands may be converted into predefined machine commands for a selected gaming device and format.
Regarding the natural language conversations comprising transmitting a request, [0176] states that: “The conversation model can initiate a messaging session or conversation in response to a gaming system stimulus. Examples of stimuli include one or more of the following: expiration of an amount of time or time threshold, occurrence of a game event such as a win on a game or gaming device… a random basis such as generated by the PRNG/RNG 160, after expiration of an amount of time or time threshold of the player not playing the game or not visiting the casino…”
And [0182] provides an example of prompting the player with “Now taking wagers on the Superbowl” and the player sending a natural language message 708 “What are the odds”.
and a curation engine comprising at least one processor and memory encoding computer executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the curation to perform operations comprising: receive gaming information from the sports wagering kiosk via the network; analyze the gaming information to determine one or more gaming parameters;
[0099], player profile management instruction set includes granular data 400 based on each gameplay action tracked by a gaming device during a gaming session. The granular data, attributes, instances or feature vectors can be extracted from gameplay session data logs including wagering behaviors.
[0160] indicates that data processed by models can be gathered in a sports betting environment and include athlete and team performance statistics, player decisions such as wager amounts and parameters associated with sporting events.
[0168], an intent classifier determines an intent of a player from a message received from the player. And [0174], a conversation model can learn what the player likes and dislikes and what the sports wagering skill of the player is.
Any of the above examples qualify as curated data that is analyzed to determine sports wagering parameters.
A sample conversation wherein context-appropriate sports wagering data is output to a player based on a player’s response to an initial NL prompt is described in [0182] wherein super bowl wagering odds are provided.
generate, based upon the one or more gaming parameters, a curated natural language expression detailing the gaming selection; and provide the curated natural language expression to the sports wagering kiosk.
See the sample scenario described in [0182] wherein natural language messages are generated and output to a player based on a player requesting certain information about super bowl wagers.
Re claim 2, [0168] describes that the intent of a player determined through natural language conversation can include analyzing metadata for context and topic classifications.
Re claims 3, 12, 17, 19, refer to [0048] which discusses that natural language processing corresponds to a machine learning model such as a dataset trained by conversation or message exchange data sets and is useable in a neural network. The model may also be trained using player, game state and gameplay data, money transfer methods, etc. See additionally [0038], [0063]-[0066], [0068], [0101]-[0102], [0159] regarding the application of machine learning in Nelson’s invention.
Re claim 4, [0047], [0060], [0062], describes that inputs to self-learning NL models can include wager behavior, average wager amounts, wagering speed, idle time, etc.
Re claims 6, 14, 20, [0047] describes that gaming system state data can comprise real-time gameplay data including changes in wagering behavior. And as discussed in the rejection of claim 3, a machine learning model is used to generate natural language expressions relevant to the player and/or game state.
Re claims 7, 15, refer to “feature vectors” in [0099].
Re claims 9, 18, refer to the rejection of claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN J HYLINSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-1995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-530.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/STEVEN J HYLINSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights