DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, 18/946,787, filed 11/13/2024, claims domestic priority from U.S. Provisional Application 63/548,358, filed 11/13/2023.
The effective filing date is after the AIA date of March 16, 2013, and so the application is being examined under the “first inventor to file” provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Status of the Application
This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s communication of 11/13/2024.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-17, 19, and 20 are pending, of which claims 1, 9, and 16 are independent.
Claims 4, 12, and 18 have been cancelled, and claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-17, and 19-20 have been amended.
All pending claims have been examined on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 06/09/2026 have been considered.
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 1-3, 5-11, 13-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, without “significantly more”.
Based on the flowchart in MPEP § 2106, Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis is: “Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?”
In regards to Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, independent claim 1 is a method claim, and independent claims 9 and 16 are apparatus claims.
For the sake of compact prosecution, we continue with the Alice/Mayo “abstract idea” analysis.
Step 2A, prong 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis is: “Does the claim recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature), or an abstract idea?”
In regards to Step 2A, prongs 1 and 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, the abstract idea elements recited in independent claim 16 are shown in italic font. (The “additional elements” and “extra solution steps” are shown in italic and underlined font):
16. (Currently Amended) A computing system for providing a dynamic transaction system, the computing system comprising:
a processor; and
a computer-readable memory comprising one or more instructions for causing the processor to:
determine a first plurality of transaction options associated with a first plurality of events, each transaction option of the first plurality of transaction options having an associated probability;
receive a request to initiate a transaction on one or more first events of the first plurality of events, the request associated with one or more first transaction options of the first plurality of transaction options and an initial stake;
track the one or more first events by receiving real-time event data from one or more data sources to determine a result of the one or more first transaction options based on results of the one or more first events; and
on at least a condition that the result of the first transaction option is successful:
determine, in real-time, a cumulative probability based, at least in part, on the result of the first transaction option and a real-time probability associated with at least one second transaction option associated with at least one second event, wherein the real-time probability is retrieved from the one or more data sources and reflects current conditions of the at least one second event;
generate, based on the cumulative probability, a potential cumulative payout by applying a payout calculation to the initial stake and the cumulative probability;
present the at least one second transaction option for a user to optionally select and the potential cumulative payout associated with selecting the at least one second transaction option, wherein the potential cumulative payout is based, at least in part, on the cumulative probability; and
present a potential payout, for the user to optionally select, based, at least in part, on the result of the first transaction option and not the real-time probability associated with at least one transaction option whose result has not yet been determined.
More specifically, claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-17, 19, and 20 recite an abstract idea: “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity", specifically “Commercial or Legal Interactions (Including Agreements in the form of Contracts; Legal Obligations; Advertising, Marketing, or Sales Activities or Behaviors; Business Relations)”, as discussed in MPEP §2106(a)(2) Parts (I) and (II), and in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
The “Commercial or Legal Interactions” elements include:
“determine a first plurality of transaction options associated with a first plurality of events, each transaction option of the first plurality of transaction options having an associated probability”.
“determine a result of the one or more first transaction options based on results of the one or more first events”.
“determine, in real-time, a cumulative probability based, at least in part, on the result of the first transaction option and a real-time probability associated with at least one second transaction option associated with at least one second event”.
“generate, based on the cumulative probability, a potential cumulative payout by applying a payout calculation to the initial stake and the cumulative probability”.
“wherein the potential cumulative payout is based, at least in part, on the cumulative probability”.
The “additional elements” include: “a processor” and “a computer-readable memory”.
Moreover, “additional extra-solution elements” include:
“receive a request to initiate a transaction on one or more first events of the first plurality of events, the request associated with one or more first transaction options of the first plurality of transaction options and an initial stake”,
“track the one or more first events by receiving real-time event data from one or more data sources”,
“wherein the real-time probability is retrieved from the one or more data sources and reflects current conditions of the at least one second event”,
“present the at least one second transaction option for a user to optionally select and the potential cumulative payout associated with selecting the at least one second transaction option”, and
“present a potential payout, for the user to optionally select, based, at least in part, on the result of the first transaction option and not the real-time probability associated with at least one transaction option whose result has not yet been determined”.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis is “Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?”
In regards to Step 2A, prong 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, this abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, because:
The claim is directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements. The generically recited computer elements (“a processor” and “a computer-readable memory”) do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea, because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim amounts to adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The extra-solution activities (“receive a request to initiate a transaction on one or more first events of the first plurality of events, the request associated with one or more first transaction options of the first plurality of transaction options and an initial stake”, “track the one or more first events by receiving real-time event data from one or more data sources”, “wherein the real-time probability is retrieved from the one or more data sources and reflects current conditions of the at least one second event”, “present the at least one second transaction option for a user to optionally select and the potential cumulative payout associated with selecting the at least one second transaction option”, and “present a potential payout, for the user to optionally select, based, at least in part, on the result of the first transaction option and not the real-time probability associated with at least one transaction option whose result has not yet been determined”) do not add a meaningful limitation to the method, as they are insignificant extra-solution activity;
The combination of the abstract idea with the additional elements (generically recited computer elements), and/or with the extra-solution activities, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo analysis is: “Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?”
In regards to Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo analysis, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because:
When considering the elements "alone and in combination" (“a processor” and “a computer-readable memory”), they do not add significantly more (also known as an "inventive concept") to the exception, because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Instead, they merely add the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
In regards to the extra solution activities (“receive a request to initiate a transaction on one or more first events of the first plurality of events, the request associated with one or more first transaction options of the first plurality of transaction options and an initial stake”, “track the one or more first events by receiving real-time event data from one or more data sources”, “wherein the real-time probability is retrieved from the one or more data sources and reflects current conditions of the at least one second event”, “present the at least one second transaction option for a user to optionally select and the potential cumulative payout associated with selecting the at least one second transaction option”, and “present a potential payout, for the user to optionally select, based, at least in part, on the result of the first transaction option and not the real-time probability associated with at least one transaction option whose result has not yet been determined”), these are recognized as such by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
More specifically, in regards to the “receiving”, “tracking” and “retrieving” steps, see the court cases OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network) and (presenting offers and gathering statistics), OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Moreover, in regards to the “presenting” steps (which are interpreted as “displaying” steps), see Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1844 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Holding that the claimed menu graphic user interface is an abstract idea under 35 USC §101, because claimant "[did] not claim a particular way of programming or designing the software to create menus that have these features, but instead merely claims the resulting systems").
Moreover, in regards to “apply it”, according to MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2):
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 (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The Examiner holds that the independent claims “use a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data)” or “simply add a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea”.
Independent claims 1 and 9 are rejected on the same grounds as independent claim 1.
All dependent claims are also rejected, because they merely further define the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2003/0137110 A1 to Huard et al. (“Huard”. Eff filed on Jan. 22, 2002. Published on Jul. 24, 2003) in view of US 2024/0370889 A1 to Back et al. (“Back”. Eff. Filed on May 1, 2023. Published on Nov. 7, 2024).
In regards to claim 1,
1. (Currently Amended) A computer implemented method comprising:
presenting a first plurality of transaction options associated with a first plurality of events, each transaction option of the first plurality of transaction options having an associated probability;
receiving a request to initiate a transaction one or more first events of the first plurality of events, the request associated with one or more first transaction options of the first plurality of transaction options and an initial stake;
(See Huard, para. [0161]: “In a preferred embodiment, securing and/or consolation auxiliary prizes are offered to players who participate in both the auxiliary game and the underlying game. For example, a player decides to participate in both the underlying game and the auxiliary game. In the auxiliary game, he chooses to bet on himself and/or the dealer and/or another player. If he loses or there is a push in the underlying game, he can still win an auxiliary prize amount. This extra payout schedule constitutes an incentive for players to participate in both the underlying and auxiliary games. It constitutes a securing or a consolation prize.”)
(See Huard, para. [0162]: “An example of such a situation would be as follows: a player places a bet in the underlying game which is, for example, Poker. The player decides to place a bet in the auxiliary game on the dealer. In the underlying game, the hand he finishes with is, for example, a three of a kind. The dealer finishes with a four of a kind. The player therefore loses to the dealer in the underlying game. Because the player had a three of a kind which is a better hand than a two of a kind and because he also bet anything on the auxiliary game, he is eligible to the special push-lose consolation prizes. The player could then be awarded a fixed amount prize or a prize calculated from a percentage of a jackpot. Using the data of Table 1 the player would receive a prize of $75.00. In addition to this, the player could still have won in the auxiliary game. He would then receive an additional prize for having won in the auxiliary game.”)
(See Huard, para. [0163]: “A further example of such a situation would be as follows: a player places a bet in the underlying game which is, for example, Poker. The player decides to place a bet in the auxiliary game on both himself and the dealer. In the underlying game, the hand he finishes with is, for example, a push with 2 pairs or better to the Dealer's underlying game hand outcome. For example, both the player and the dealer ended the play with a four of a kind hand. In this situation a second, more special and larger auxiliary prize is attributed since the player placed two auxiliary bets in the auxiliary game. The prize amount is then determined according to the type of the push card hand received by the player in the play of the underlying game and by the number of bets the player has placed in the auxiliary game.”)
However, under a conservative interpretation of Huard, it could be argued that Huard does not explicitly teach the italicized features below, which are taught by Back:
tracking the one or more first events by receiving real-time event data from one or more data sources to determine a result of the one or more first transaction options based on results of the one or more first events; and
(See Back, para. [0025]: “An Application Programming Interface (API) may be established with the database to allow recall of information from the database. When making predictions of future phases, the system can use the historical data stored within the database. Real-time information (i.e., information received with delays only for transfer of data through the Internet or another network) about the status of upcoming events can be a key component of data collection. In the sports example, the data can be sourced from a combination of third party data providers (e.g., Sportsbooks, sports leagues) and internal system operators. In a stock market example, the data can be sourced directly from an exchange or news organizations with access to primary resources (e.g., BLOOMBERG®). The real-time market information should also be collected and stored.”)
on at least a condition that the result of the first transaction option is successful:
determining, in real-time, a cumulative probability based, at least in part, on the result of the first transaction option and a real-time probability associated with at least one second transaction option associated with at least one second event, wherein the real-time probability is retrieved from the one or more data sources and reflects current conditions of the at least one second event;
(See Back, para. [0030]: “The simulated event analysis tool (or model) can be used to assign probabilities to one or more events associated with a specific event. In the context of fantasy sports or betting, the system can use information a single event or multiple related events within a sports category (i.e., the system can predict a single game or a series of games, a single “at bat” by a baseball player or an entire game). To do so, the system can establish an API such that files associated with the event can be recalled from the server and used for additional applications. The data being recalled can represent the cumulative probability of various event occurrences within a series of past events. Using that data, the system can predict probabilities for future events. For example, in the case of stocks, the data can be used to assign probability on the performance of the stock over a year, or for performance of the stock over specific quarters. In a sporting example, the data can be used to establish a range of individual player outcomes, outcomes of games, or specific portions of the game (e.g., first half performance, second half performance). In yet another sporting example, individual player statistical outcomes can be compared to betting markets, and probability can be considered to evaluate the likelihood that a sports betting wager will be successful.”)
generating, based on the cumulative probability, a potential cumulative payout by applying a payout calculation to the initial stake and the cumulative probability;
presenting the at least one second transaction option for a user to optionally select and the potential cumulative payout associated with selecting the at least one second transaction option, wherein the potential cumulative payout is based, at least in part, on the cumulative probability; and
(See Back, para. [0021]: “While systems configured as disclosed herein can make such predictions for a single event, systems configured as disclosed herein can also generate the likelihood of outcomes when more than one event is simulated (i.e., parlaying the events together). By executing the simulations and combining them together, the system can show an implied percentage and odds of occurrence on the parlay based on the simulations. This is useful to users in identifying which possible chain of events create a highest likelihood of occurring, which events create (in the case of stocks or wagering) a highest possible payout, which events are least likely to occur, etc.”)
(See Back, para. [0044]: “The user can then select a market 110 for a first bet (e.g., a specific sportsbook or an option seller), and the system can filter out all future events which do not rely on that first bet 112. From those filtered events, the system can select a second bet (e.g., a second market 114), which again results in filtering non-matching results 116. Preferably (though not required), the system identifies the events which, if they happen, will produce the highest possible returns for the user. If desired and available, the system can provide more than two cumulative series bets in forming the parlay, with the result being that each time a market is selected, the system selects correlating events that produce higher value parlays 118. The user can then confirm or finalize the parlay 120.”)
presenting a potential payout, for the user to optionally select, based, at least in part, on the result of the first transaction option stored and not the real-time probability associated with at least one transaction option whose result has not yet been determined.
(See Back, para. [0031]: “In parallel with the event simulation, the system also models market participation, predicting how the market (i.e., other users or people) will react to an event. Consider the example of the system being used to evaluate daily fantasy sports entries. In this example, the model establishes a simulated field of participants in a simulated daily fantasy sports contest. A contest is identified for evaluation and a trigger is sent to start the process. First, the system generates an API call to acquire contest information (e.g., the raw data discussed above) from a database, from primary resources, and/or a combination thereof. Daily fantasy contest information can include real sports games under consideration, the rules of the contest, the payouts and prize of the contest, and the player pool information of the contest. An additional API call can be made to the simulated events model (or a server sending the model out to be executed by multiple cloud platforms) to obtain the requisite event data for each sporting event associated with the contest at hand.”)
(See Back, para. [0032]: “Once that data is acquired, the first step in simulating a field of market participants is to identify historical behaviors and apply them. This can include: A typical number of participants per contest; Trends in how the participants make decisions on sporting event player options; Trends on how the participants utilize available “salary cap”/adhere to the limits of the market conditions; How the participants consider correlated outcomes within their selections; How the participants consider the behavior of their opponents when making choices; and so forth. This information can then be used to setup a suite of “settings” and rules for an optimizer to use when creating a simulated field of participants. It is noted that the optimizer is not the only agent of shaping the field of participants. In some configurations, once all lineups are created, the system can read the aggregated fantasy points value and select (using a series of tiered groupings), at random, smaller subsets of the lineups for use. As needed, this process may become even more complex and precise to shape the field of participants using other details. The goal is for the system (via the simulated markets model) to use aggregate collection of entries to mirror typical real life fantasy contests in their aggregate heuristics.”)
(See Back, para. [0035]: “From these participants, the system can reapply the results each of the simulated trials to each of the participant lineups. A single simulated contest for a fantasy sports example looks like this: Step 1: Apply fantasy points from a first trial to all participant lineups. Step 2: Tabulate the total fantasy points per lineup and rank the participant lineups. Step 3: Import the contest payout details and apply a simulated prize amount to each participant. Step 4: Repeat for all available trials.”)
The Examiner interprets that “Daily fantasy contest information” (See Back, para. [0031]) can be updated on a daily basis, and therefore is not real-time, and that therefore it is an obvious variation to “presenting a potential payout, for the user to optionally select, based, at least in part, on the result of the first transaction option stored and not the real-time probability”, wherein the first transaction option stored is based on the prior day’s data.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA), before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the method and apparatus for multi player bet auxiliary game, as taught by Huard above, with the method and apparatus for cumulative series event prediction, as further taught by Back above, because both references are in the same art of casino/gambling systems, and the Back reference enables “cumulative series event prediction”, which Back teaches in para. [0017]: “By parsing the outcomes of multiple simulations, users can match simulation data to different outcomes, resulting in a more informed prediction of expected outcome”.
In regards to claim 3,
3. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, further comprising determining a probability associated with the at least one second transaction option.
(See Back, para. [0044]: “The user can then select a market 110 for a first bet (e.g., a specific sportsbook or an option seller), and the system can filter out all future events which do not rely on that first bet 112. From those filtered events, the system can select a second bet (e.g., a second market 114), which again results in filtering non-matching results 116. Preferably (though not required), the system identifies the events which, if they happen, will produce the highest possible returns for the user. If desired and available, the system can provide more than two cumulative series bets in forming the parlay, with the result being that each time a market is selected, the system selects correlating events that produce higher value parlays 118. The user can then confirm or finalize the parlay 120.”)
In regards to claim 4, it has been cancelled.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising determining a transaction probability associated with the second transaction option and a cumulative probability associated with the first transaction option and the second transaction option.
(See Back, para. [0019]: “That is, the system may make a series of predictions P for an event, situation, or circumstance multiple times. Iteration “A” uses probabilities individual actions to develop a total probability for iteration A, PA (That is, (P.sub.A1+P.sub.A2+P.sub.A3 . . . =PA), where P.sub.A1, P.sub.A2, and P.sub.A3 reflect the probabilities of a single component, and PA reflects the combined probability). Similar iterations are done to develop PB. Pc . . . to whatever number of iterations is desired. The system can then average, identify the mean, or otherwise predict the overall probability based on the probabilities of the previous simulations and generated probabilities.”)
(See Back, para. [0023]: “The system disclosed herein provides simulations and pairs markets to those simulations. For example, with stocks, the simulations can be aligned to options trading (e.g., calls/puts) which identify future prices and list current prices for those options. Likewise, with sporting events, the simulations can be aligned to current odds being generated by one or more sportsbooks. Pairing can be technically difficult to a lack of availability of data feeds and how non-standardized such data feeds often are. Moreover, parsing the data feeds can be rigorous as each data feed may have a unique format.”)
In regards to claim 5,
5. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, further comprising determining a transaction probability associated with the at least one second transaction option and a cumulative probability associated with each combination of the first transaction option with the at least one second transaction option.
(See Back, para. [0019]: “That is, the system may make a series of predictions P for an event, situation, or circumstance multiple times. Iteration “A” uses probabilities individual actions to develop a total probability for iteration A, PA (That is, (P.sub.A1+P.sub.A2+P.sub.A3 . . . =PA), where P.sub.A1, P.sub.A2, and P.sub.A3 reflect the probabilities of a single component, and PA reflects the combined probability). Similar iterations are done to develop PB. Pc . . . to whatever number of iterations is desired. The system can then average, identify the mean, or otherwise predict the overall probability based on the probabilities of the previous simulations and generated probabilities.”)
(See Back, para. [0044]: “The user can then select a market 110 for a first bet (e.g., a specific sportsbook or an option seller), and the system can filter out all future events which do not rely on that first bet 112. From those filtered events, the system can select a second bet (e.g., a second market 114), which again results in filtering non-matching results 116. Preferably (though not required), the system identifies the events which, if they happen, will produce the highest possible returns for the user. If desired and available, the system can provide more than two cumulative series bets in forming the parlay, with the result being that each time a market is selected, the system selects correlating events that produce higher value parlays 118. The user can then confirm or finalize the parlay 120.”)
In regards to claim 7,
7. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 6, further comprising determining at least one suggested transaction option from the at least one second transaction option based on one or more of the transaction probability, the cumulative probability, or the potential prize pool payout associated with the at least one second transaction option.
(See Back, para. [0044]: “The user can then select a market 110 for a first bet (e.g., a specific sportsbook or an option seller), and the system can filter out all future events which do not rely on that first bet 112. From those filtered events, the system can select a second bet (e.g., a second market 114), which again results in filtering non-matching results 116. Preferably (though not required), the system identifies the events which, if they happen, will produce the highest possible returns for the user. If desired and available, the system can provide more than two cumulative series bets in forming the parlay, with the result being that each time a market is selected, the system selects correlating events that produce higher value parlays 118. The user can then confirm or finalize the parlay 120.”)
In regards to claim 9, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
In regards to claim 11, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
In regards to claim 12, it has been cancelled.
In regards to claim 15,
15. (Currently Amended) The system of claim 9, further comprising a data source, wherein the server system is configured to receive one or more of the first plurality of transaction options, the result of the first transaction option, or the at least one second transaction option from the data source.
(See Back, para. [0044]: “The user can then select a market 110 for a first bet (e.g., a specific sportsbook or an option seller), and the system can filter out all future events which do not rely on that first bet 112. From those filtered events, the system can select a second bet (e.g., a second market 114), which again results in filtering non-matching results 116. Preferably (though not required), the system identifies the events which, if they happen, will produce the highest possible returns for the user. If desired and available, the system can provide more than two cumulative series bets in forming the parlay, with the result being that each time a market is selected, the system selects correlating events that produce higher value parlays 118. The user can then confirm or finalize the parlay 120.”)
In regards to claim 16, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
In regards to claim 17, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 11.
In regards to claim 18, it has been cancelled.
Claims 2, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huard in view of Back as applied to independent claims 1, 9, and 16 above, and further in view of US 6,358,149 B1 to Schneider et al. (“Schneider”. Eff. Filed on Sept. 11, 1998. Published on Mar. 19, 2002.)
In regards to claim 2, under a conservative interpretation of Huard in view of Back, it could be argued that Huard in view of Back does not explicitly teach the italicized features below, which are taught by Schneider:
2. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, further comprising contributing a predefined portion of the initial stake to a progressive prize pool.
(See Schneider, col. 1, lines 47-67: “In a typical bonusing system, bonus prizes are awarded on top of regular jackpot pay table prizes when a progressive bonus pool meets or exceeds a predetermined, first threshold value. Exceeding this threshold value starts a bonus period. A predefined percentage of coins wagered on the games are placed into a common bonus pool. The amount of the bonus pool is then continually compared to the first threshold value. This first threshold value is either fixed or is selected at random at the start of each pool accrual cycle. When the pool reaches the threshold value, the bonus period commences in which bonus prizes are awarded to all eligible games on the link, or alternately are awarded to some subset of eligible machines on the link, which meet some other criteria. Typically, eligibility implies that the machine has a person who is playing at some predefined minimum acceptable play rate--for instance three coins every thirty seconds. The awarded bonus prizes are then decremented from the bonus pool. When the bonus pool falls below a second (lower) threshold, the bonus period is stopped until the bonus pool again rises beyond the predetermined, first threshold value.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA), before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the method and apparatus for multi player bet auxiliary game, as taught by Huard above, with the method and apparatus for cumulative series event prediction, as further taught by Back above, because both references are in the same art of casino/gambling systems, and the Back reference enables “cumulative series event prediction”, which Back teaches in para. [0017]: “By parsing the outcomes of multiple simulations, users can match simulation data to different outcomes, resulting in a more informed prediction of expected outcome”, and it would further have been obvious to include the method and apparatus for dynamic threshold for pool-based bonus promotions in electronic gaming systems, as taught by Schneider above, because all three references are in the same art of casino/gambling systems, and the Schneider reference solves the following problem (see Schneider, col. 2, lines 20-24): “Accordingly, a need remains for an improved gaming system that dynamically adjusts its bonusing scheme to accommodate the appropriate number of players during off-peak and well as peak playing times.”.
In regards to claim 6, under a conservative interpretation of Huard in view of Back, it could be argued that Huard in view of Back does not explicitly teach the italicized features below, which are taught by Schneider:
6. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 5, further comprising using the cumulative probability to determine a potential prize pool payout associated with the at least one second transaction option.
(See Schneider, col. 1, lines 47-67: “In a typical bonusing system, bonus prizes are awarded on top of regular jackpot pay table prizes when a progressive bonus pool meets or exceeds a predetermined, first threshold value. Exceeding this threshold value starts a bonus period. A predefined percentage of coins wagered on the games are placed into a common bonus pool. The amount of the bonus pool is then continually compared to the first threshold value. This first threshold value is either fixed or is selected at random at the start of each pool accrual cycle. When the pool reaches the threshold value, the bonus period commences in which bonus prizes are awarded to all eligible games on the link, or alternately are awarded to some subset of eligible machines on the link, which meet some other criteria. Typically, eligibility implies that the machine has a person who is playing at some predefined minimum acceptable play rate--for instance three coins every thirty seconds. The awarded bonus prizes are then decremented from the bonus pool. When the bonus pool falls below a second (lower) threshold, the bonus period is stopped until the bonus pool again rises beyond the predetermined, first threshold value.”)
The Examiner interprets that is an obvious variation to have the cumulative probability used as Schneider’s “predetermined, first threshold value”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA), before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the method and apparatus for multi player bet auxiliary game, as taught by Huard above, with the method and apparatus for cumulative series event prediction, as further taught by Back above, because both references are in the same art of casino/gambling systems, and the Back reference enables “cumulative series event prediction”, which Back teaches in para. [0017]: “By parsing the outcomes of multiple simulations, users can match simulation data to different outcomes, resulting in a more informed prediction of expected outcome”, and it would further have been obvious to include the method and apparatus for dynamic threshold for pool-based bonus promotions in electronic gaming systems, as taught by Schneider above, because all three references are in the same art of casino/gambling systems, and the Schneider reference solves the following problem (see Schneider, col. 2, lines 20-24): “Accordingly, a need remains for an improved gaming system that dynamically adjusts its bonusing scheme to accommodate the appropriate number of players during off-peak and well as peak playing times.”.
In regards to claim 8, under a conservative interpretation of Huard in view of Back, it could be argued that Huard in view of Back does not explicitly teach the italicized features below, which are taught by Schneider:
8. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 6, wherein determining the potential prize pool payout comprises:
determining a size of a progressive prize pool; and
determining a projected tier associated with the at least one second transaction option, wherein the potential prize pool payout is determined based on one or more of the size of the progressive prize pool and the projected tier.
(See Schneider, col. 1, lines 47-67: “In a typical bonusing system, bonus prizes are awarded on top of regular jackpot pay table prizes when a progressive bonus pool meets or exceeds a predetermined, first threshold value. Exceeding this threshold value starts a bonus period. A predefined percentage of coins wagered on the games are placed into a common bonus pool. The amount of the bonus pool is then continually compared to the first threshold value. This first threshold value is either fixed or is selected at random at the start of each pool accrual cycle. When the pool reaches the threshold value, the bonus period commences in which bonus prizes are awarded to all eligible games on the link, or alternately are awarded to some subset of eligible machines on the link, which meet some other criteria. Typically, eligibility implies that the machine has a person who is playing at some predefined minimum acceptable play rate--for instance three coins every thirty seconds. The awarded bonus prizes are then decremented from the bonus pool. When the bonus pool falls below a second (lower) threshold, the bonus period is stopped until the bonus pool again rises beyond the predetermined, first threshold value.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA), before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the method and apparatus for multi player bet auxiliary game, as taught by Huard above, with the method and apparatus for cumulative series event prediction, as further taught by Back above, because both references are in the same art of casino/gambling systems, and the Back reference enables “cumulative series event prediction”, which Back teaches in para. [0017]: “By parsing the outcomes of multiple simulations, users can match simulation data to different outcomes, resulting in a more informed prediction of expected outcome”, and it would further have been obvious to include the method and apparatus for dynamic threshold for pool-based bonus promotions in electronic gaming systems, as taught by Schneider above, because all three references are in the same art of casino/gambling systems, and the Schneider reference solves the following problem (see Schneider, col. 2, lines 20-24): “Accordingly, a need remains for an improved gaming system that dynamically adjusts its bonusing scheme to accommodate the appropriate number of players during off-peak and well as peak playing times.”.
In regards to claim 10, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
In regards to claim 13, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
In regards to claim 14, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 8.
In regards to claim 19, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
In regards to claim 20, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 8.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications should be directed to Examiner Ayal Sharon, whose telephone number is (571) 272-5614, and fax number is (571) 273-1794. The Examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 9 AM and 6 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SPE Christine Behncke can be reached at (571) 272-8103 or at christine.behncke@uspto.gov. The fax 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.
Sincerely,
/Ayal I. Sharon/
Examiner, Art Unit 3695
July 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights