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 Non-Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s communication of 11/13/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claims 1, 9, and 16 are independent.
All pending claims have been examined on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 02/11/2025 and 07/21/2025 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 1-20 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. 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;
receive a request to initiate a transaction on a first event of the first plurality of events, the request associated with a first transaction option of the first plurality of transaction options;
determine a result of the first transaction option based on a result of the first event;
on condition that the result of the first transaction option is successful, present an option to either execute a potential payout for the first transaction option or continue the transaction; and
on condition that continuing the transaction is selected, determine a second plurality of transaction options associated with a second plurality of events for constructing a series including the first transaction option and a second transaction option of the second plurality of transaction options.
More specifically, claims 1-20 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”.
“determine a result of the first transaction option based on a result of the first event”.
“determine a second plurality of transaction options associated with a second plurality of events for constructing a series including the first transaction option and a second transaction option of the second plurality of transaction options”.
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 a first event of the first plurality of events, the request associated with a first transaction option of the first plurality of transaction options” and “present an option to either execute a potential payout for the first transaction option or continue the transaction”.
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 a first event of the first plurality of events, the request associated with a first transaction option of the first plurality of transaction options” and “present an option to either execute a potential payout for the first transaction option or continue the transaction”) 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 a first event of the first plurality of events, the request associated with a first transaction option of the first plurality of transaction options” and “present an option to either execute a potential payout for the first transaction option or continue the transaction”), these are recognized as such by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
More specifically, in regards to the “receiving” and “presenting” 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).
Alternatively, if the “presenting” step is interpreted as a “displaying” step, 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 § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by 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. A computer implemented method comprising:
presenting a first plurality of transaction options associated with a first plurality of events;
receiving a request to initiate a transaction on a first event of the first plurality of events, the request associated with a first transaction option of the first plurality of transaction options;
determining a result of the first transaction option based on a result of the first 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.”)
on condition that the result of the first transaction option is successful, presenting an option to either execute a potential payout for the first transaction option or continue the transaction; and
on condition that continuing the transaction is selected, presenting a second plurality of transaction options associated with a second plurality of events for constructing a series including the first transaction option and a second transaction option of the second plurality of transaction options.
(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 2,
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising contributing a predefined portion of an initial stake to a progressive prize pool, wherein the initial stake is included in the request to initiate the transaction on the first event.
(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 3,
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising determining a probability associated with each of the second plurality of transaction options.
(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,
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. The method of claim 1, further comprising determining a transaction probability associated with each of the second plurality of transaction options and a cumulative probability associated with each combination of the first transaction option with each of the second plurality of transaction options.
(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 6,
6. The method of claim 5, further comprising using the cumulative probability to determine a potential prize pool payout associated with each of the second plurality of transaction options.
(See Back, para. [0031]: “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.”)
In regards to claim 7,
7. The method of claim 6, further comprising determining at least one suggested transaction option from the second plurality of transaction options based on one or more of the transaction probability, the cumulative probability, or the potential prize pool payout associated with each of the second plurality of transaction options.
(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. [0031]: “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.”)
In regards to claim 8,
8. The method of claim 6, wherein determining the potential prize pool payout comprises:
determining a size of a progressive prize pool; and
(See Back, para. [0031]: “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.”)
determining a projected tier associated with each combination of the first transaction option with each of the second plurality of transaction options, 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 Back, para. [0037]: “The simulation weight can modify how the single event prediction is ranked; the projection weight can modify how the predicted betting markets are ranked; the upside weight can modify how a projected upside is ranked; and the correlation weight can modify how the at least one correlation effects the simulated markets model. For example, The simulation weight 0-99 score can be based on the simulated markets return on investment (ROI). The projection weight 0-99 score can be based on a lineup mean fantasy points projection. The upside weight can be based on a frequency of top tier finishes and assigned 0-99 score based on that frequency. An ownership weight: 0-99 score based on how often (geometric mean) players in lineup appeared as optimal. The correlation weight 0-99 score can be based on setting criteria for how closely the players in the lineup expect to correlate with each other in their outcomes.”)
In regards to claim 9, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
In regards to claim 10, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
In regards to claim 11, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
In regards to claim 12, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
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 15,
15. 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 second plurality of transaction options 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 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2018/0286181 A1 to Craig (“Craig”. Eff. Filed on Mar. 29, 2017. Published on Oct. 4, 2018).
US 2021/0104125 A1 to You et al. (“You”. Eff. Filed on Oct. 7, 2019. Published on Apr. 8, 2021).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
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.
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
December 9, 2025