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.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: It must be determined whether the invention falls in one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claims 1 – 20 are directed towards a method, (process), which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2a:
Prong 1: It must be determined whether the invention is directed to judicially recognized exception. Claim 1 is analyzed below with limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea.
A method comprising: determining, by a computing device, a plurality of events for one or more gaming sessions; receiving, from each user device of a plurality of user devices, a selection of a price and a selection of an amount of events of the plurality of events, wherein each user device is associated with a user; receiving, from each user device, a prediction associated with each event of the plurality of events associated with the corresponding selected amount of events; associating, based on the corresponding selected price received from each user device and the corresponding selected amount of events received from each user device, each user with a group of users for each gaming session of the one or more gaming sessions; determining one or more users of each group of users associated with an amount of correct predictions of the corresponding predictions associated with each user that satisfies a condition; determining, based on the satisfied condition, one or more awards corresponding to the one or more users; and sending a notification of each award to each user of the one or more users.
The abstract idea is defined by the underlined portions exemplary claim 1, with substantially similar features found in claims 7 and 13. Dependent claims 2 – 6, 8 – 12, and 14 -20 further define the abstract idea or relate to the implementation of the abstract idea. The abstract idea is defined in at least the following grouping below:
Certain methods of organizing human activity (exchanging financial obligations)
Mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment)
The claims are directed towards an abstract idea of a method of exchanging financial obligations which falls into the category of organizing human activity, (See MPEP 2106/04(a)(2)(II)(C)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a gaming system that determines the outcome for a plurality of events, the receives entry fees, (selection of a price), from a plurality of players, wherein the gaming system represents the exchange of consideration based on correct predictions during the displaying of the plurality of events. Providing a game that allows players to participate to win awards represents exchanging financial obligations. Furthermore, the claims are drawn to how a game is played, which represents following rules/instructions that define how the game is conducted.
The claims are also directed towards a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more human, which fall into the category of mental processes, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a plurality of gaming events, determining the results of the gaming events, and displaying said results to a plurality of players. The claims recite instructions for providing a game with these features. Here, a human can observe the displaying of game events, determine an outcome, wherein based on the outcome the game events, a player can observe and determine an award associated with the game events. Therefore, since the claimed invention can practically be performed in the human mind, it represents an ineligible abstract mental process.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
The claims recite a generic computing device along with instructions that present gaming events to players and determine the result of the gaming events, which is viewed as no more than instructions to implement a judicial exception.
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.
Step 2b: It must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim language does recite a computing device and user devices associated with a plurality of users, however, viewed as a whole, these additional elements are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art, ( See US 5816915 at col. 3, lines 35 - 59 regarding gaming machines receiving selections from players to play the as being conventional activities well-understood in the art). Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Viewing 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.
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.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Mahaffey et al. (U.S. 2006/0287094).
Regarding claims 1, 7,and 13, Mahaffey discloses a method comprising, determining, by a computing device, (fig. 1), a plurality of events for one or more gaming sessions, (“collect wagering from the gamblers, accept predictions for discrete events within the sporting event from each gambler and determine a first winner of the competition based upon the predictions”, par. 0012), receiving, a selection of a price, (“In one embodiment, the gambler initializes their participation by contributing money into the pool such as $100 per game or $10 per quarter”, par. 0041), a selection of an amount of events of the plurality of events, (“ accepting predictions from each gambler for discrete events within the categories for the sporting event”, par. 0014), wherein each user device is associated with a user, (“A plurality of clients 18 are also connected to the distributed computing network to allow a multitude of users to viewed the event and participate in the hosted gaming event”, par. 0026 and fig. 1, part 18), receiving a prediction associated with each event of the plurality of events associated with the corresponding selected amount of events, (“accept predictions for discrete events within the sporting event from each gambler”, par. 0040), associating each user with a group of users for each gaming session of the one or more gaming sessions, (“the house enrolls gamblers in the gambling event via the user interface screens”, par. 0041), determining an amount of correct predictions of the corresponding predictions associated with each user that satisfies a condition, (“comparing the predictions to possible outcomes of the discrete events and the first winner has the most points”, par. 0013), determining one or more awards corresponding to the one or more users, (“the house deducts a commission and pays out the balance on a pari-mutuel basis. For example, a certain percentage (50%) may go to the highest score, a second lower percentage may be divided equally among the second through fifth place finishers (%20) with the remaining percentage of the pool (%30) being divided equally among the remaining gamblers”, par. 0044), wherein the Examiner views paying out the balance percentage wise to the plurality of gamblers as being equivalent to determining one or more awards to one or more users. Mahaffey further discloses sending a notification and updates of each award to each user of the one or more users, (“Summary results are provided to all participating gamblers in real time. In one embodiment, the results are communicated by a scoreboard at the event”, par. 0043).
Regarding claims 2, 8, and 14, Mahaffey discloses wherein each event of the plurality of events comprises a predicted outcome associated with a player statistic associated with a sports event, (“event data related to a sporting event, gambler data related to gamblers participating in a competition based upon the sporting event”, par. 0012).
Regarding claims 3 and 9, Mahaffey discloses wherein each group of users comprises a plurality users associated with an amount of events of the plurality of events and a price of a plurality of prices, (“In one embodiment, the gambler initializes their participation by contributing money into the pool such as $100 per game or $10 per quarter”, par. 0041).
Regarding claims 4 and 10, Mahaffey discloses wherein each event of the plurality of events is associated with a time duration for each event to settle, wherein the time duration for each event to settle is based on when a corresponding sports event for each event is completed, and wherein associating each user with a group of users for each gaming session comprises associating each user with a group of users for each gaming session based on the time duration for each event associated with each corresponding user to settle, (“this embodiment may be further directed to a method that varies the point awards for a category in inverse proportion to a time remaining in the sporting event”, par. 0015), wherein the Examiner views the time remaining in the sporting event as being equivalent to a time duration.
Regarding claims 5 and 11, Mahaffey discloses wherein the condition comprises one or more of a determination that all predictions received from a user are correct, or a determination that at least one prediction received from a user is correct and no other user in the corresponding group of users associated with the user has a number of predictions greater than the user, (“a certain percentage (50%) may go to the highest score, a second lower percentage may be divided equally among the second through fifth place finishers (%20) with the remaining percentage of the pool (%30) being divided equally among the remaining gamblers. As a result, each gambler is guaranteed some rebate and, for large pools, significant enticing payouts can be won. In another embodiment, a single winner with the highest score takes the pool”, par. 0044).
Regarding claims 6 and 12, Mahaffey discloses a first award based on a determination that all predictions received from a user are correct, or a second award based on a determination that at least one prediction received from a user is correct and no other user in the corresponding group of users associated with the user has a number of predictions greater than the user, (“a certain percentage (50%) may go to the highest score, a second lower percentage may be divided equally among the second through fifth place finishers (%20) with the remaining percentage of the pool (%30) being divided equally among the remaining gamblers. As a result, each gambler is guaranteed some rebate and, for large pools, significant enticing payouts can be won. In another embodiment, a single winner with the highest score takes the pool”, par. 0044).
Regarding claim 14, Mahaffey discloses wherein each event of the plurality of events comprises a predicted outcome associated with a player statistic associated with a sports event, (“The discrete events are infinitely variable such plays in American football or player statistics in a plurality of categories such as points”, par. 0013).
Regarding claim 15, Mahaffey discloses determining the number of correct predictions of the selected amount of events satisfies a condition, wherein the condition comprises one of no correct predictions of the selected amount of events, all of the predictions are correct and all user entries of the group of users are final, all of the predictions are correct and all user entries of the group of users are not final, or at least one prediction is correct and no other user in the group of users has a greater number of correct predictions, (“a certain percentage (50%) may go to the highest score, a second lower percentage may be divided equally among the second through fifth place finishers (%20) with the remaining percentage of the pool (%30) being divided equally among the remaining gamblers. As a result, each gambler is guaranteed some rebate and, for large pools, significant enticing payouts can be won. In another embodiment, a single winner with the highest score takes the pool”, par. 0044).
Regarding claim 16, Mahaffey discloses wherein updating the results comprises updating, based on the satisfied condition, the results, (“the server 12 aggregates and updates the gambler's point totals after every play”, par. 0043).
Regarding claim 17, Mahaffey discloses based on the condition of no correct predictions of the selected amount of events, the updated results comprises one or more of an indication of a loss, each correct prediction of the selected amount of events, or each incorrect prediction of the selected amount of events, (“Referring to FIGS. 4-6, various exemplary distributions for pari-mutuel payouts are shown”, par. 0044 and fig. 5).
Regarding claim 18, Mahaffey discloses wherein, based on the condition of all of the predictions are correct and all user entries of the group of users are final, the updated results comprises one or more of predictions associated with each user of the group of users, an award amount, a portion of the award amount associated with the user, an amount of users of the group of users with all correct predictions, or one or more names of experienced users of the group of users, (“a certain percentage (50%) may go to the highest score, a second lower percentage may be divided equally among the second through fifth place finishers (%20) with the remaining percentage of the pool (%30) being divided equally among the remaining gamblers. As a result, each gambler is guaranteed some rebate and, for large pools, significant enticing payouts can be won. In another embodiment, a single winner with the highest score takes the pool”, par. 0044).
Regarding claim 19, Mahaffey discloses wherein, based on the condition of all of the predictions are correct and all user entries of the group of users are not final, the updated results comprises one or more of predictions associated with each user of the group of users, an award amount associated with a winner of the group of users, an amount of users of the group of users with all correct predictions, an award amount associated with all correct predictions, or a pending state associated with a potential portion of the award amount associated with the user, (“a certain percentage (50%) may go to the highest score, a second lower percentage may be divided equally among the second through fifth place finishers (%20) with the remaining percentage of the pool (%30) being divided equally among the remaining gamblers. As a result, each gambler is guaranteed some rebate and, for large pools, significant enticing payouts can be won. In another embodiment, a single winner with the highest score takes the pool”, par. 0044).
Regarding claim 20, Mahaffey discloses based on the condition of at least one prediction is correct and no other user in the group of users has a greater number of correct predictions, the updated results comprises one or more of an amount of correct predictions, an award amount, (“As a result, each gambler is guaranteed some rebate and, for large pools, significant enticing payouts can be won. In another embodiment, a single winner with the highest score takes the pool”, par. 0044).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1699. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/E.M.T/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/JUSTIN L MYHR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights