Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Objections
2. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Change “bet defines” to – bet defines: --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings - Advisory
3. No drawings have been included in the disclosure. Drawings are only required when they are necessary to understand the invention (MPEP 1825). However, for any future claim amendments where there is more complexity added to the claims, Examiner recommends drawings to help facilitate understanding of the claimed invention. No new matter may be introduced.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
6. Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method meeting the requirements for Step 1.
7. Step 2A Prong 1
In independent Claim 1, the claim recites steps of an activity that can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper as well as wagering, which are abstract mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity, respectively.
1. A method comprising: receiving a plurality of bets, in which each bet defines:
a respective amounted wagered,
a respective area, and
a respective weather-related event;
displaying data that represents the plurality of bets;
determining an outcome of a weather-related event; and
determine at least one winner based on the bets and the outcome.
As explained in the MPEP and the October 2019 Update, in situations like this where a series of steps recite judicial exceptions, examiners should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single abstract idea for purposes of further eligibility. See MPEP 2106.04 and 2106.05(II). Thus, for purposes of claim eligibility, the claim is viewed as wagering which is an abstract certain method of organizing human activity.
8. Step 2A Prong II
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. According to MPEP 2106, a consideration indicative of integration into a practical application includes improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular application (a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components for filtering Internet content, as discussed in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Conversely, considerations not indicative of integration include adding words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)); adding insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Here, the recite claims lack improvements to the functioning of a computer or technological field and merely betting on the weather and there does not appear to be extra-solution activity but for the abstract wagering steps. Thus, Claim 1 lacks the eligibility requirements of Step 2 Prong II.
9. Step 2B
According to the MPEP 2106, in addition to the considerations discussed in Step 2A, an additional consideration indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) is the addition of a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Conversely, an additional consideration not indicative of an inventive concept is simply appending well-understood, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo, April 20, 2018). Thus, the additional elements evaluated under Step 2A are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Here, there are no elements evaluated under Step 2A. Claim 1 does not recite additional elements, individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, Claim 1 is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. 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.
11. Claim 1 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (a), (b) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. Pub. No. U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2003/0087701 to Paravia.
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
In Reference to Claim 1
Paravia discloses a method (Fig. 2), comprising:
receiving a plurality of bets, in which each bet defines:
a respective amounted wagered (Fig. 2 152 wager amount [0016, 0070]),
a respective area (Fig. 2 grant access 150, bets are based on registered players who provide location information, see profile, verifiable address [0015], IP addresses [0059], player profile address [0060]); and
a respective weather-related event (“weather events (whether or not it rains on a particular day, the amount of snowfall brought by a particular storm, the strength of the winds of a particular hurricane, or other weather events” [0072}, see also [0074, 0084];
displaying data that represents the plurality of bets (Fig. 3 216 and 218, 220 displayed information on the events and odds and payoffs represent the plurality of bets [0072, 0073, 0074, 0076], see also update to the displayed data also represents the plurality of bets [0083]);
determining an outcome of a weather-related event (Fig. 2 154, compute results, payoffs [0071], outcomes [0072], [0106], [0152]); and
determine at least one winner based on the bets and the outcome (Fig. 2 156, payoffs to appropriate player accounts [0071]).
Double Patenting
12. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
13. A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
14. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
15. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,562,422. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are anticipated by the granted parent claims.
U.S. Pat. No. 8,562,422
U.S. Pat. App. No. 18/978,715
1.A method comprising:
receiving by at least one processor a first plurality of bets from a computer in communication with the at least one processor over a network, in which the first plurality of bets are defined at least in part by
a first time period and a weather-related event, and in which each of the first plurality of bets is further defined at least in part by:
a respective amount wagered,
a respective geographic area comprising at least one human population center, the respective geographic area being within a geographic region comprising a plurality of human population centers, and
a predicted occurrence of the weather-related event;
displaying at a display device communicatively coupled to the at least one processor data that represents the first plurality of bets;
pooling at least a portion of the amounts wagered for each of the first plurality of bets into a first plurality of pools, the first plurality of pools comprising at least two pools corresponding to at least two different geographic regions;
determining by the at least one processor an outcome of a weather-related event, in which the act of determining the outcome comprises determining that the weather-related event occurred in at least one specific one of the geographic areas;
determining by the at least one processor at least one winner based on the bets and the outcome, the at least one winner having placed at least one winning bet defined at least in part by the at least one specific one of the geographic areas;
determining by the at least one processor at least one payout for the at least one winner; and paying the at least one payout from at least one of the first plurality of pools to the at least one winner.
1.A method comprising:
receiving a plurality of bets, in which each bet defines
a respective amounted wagered,
a respective area, and
respective weather-related event;
displaying data that represents the plurality of bets;
determining an outcome of a weather-related event; and
determine at least one winner based on the bets and the outcome.
Conclusion
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is in the Notice of References Cited.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul A. D’Agostino whose telephone number is (571) 270-1992.
18. 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.
19. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached on (571) 270-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-2992.
/PAUL A D'AGOSTINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights