DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the initial filing filed on January 7, 2025 Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 4/1/2025, has been acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-20 are drawn to a method. As such, claims 1-20 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite any judicial exceptions including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes).
Claims 1, and 11, recite A method comprising: determining, by a computing device, a plurality of events for a gaming session; receiving, from each user device of a plurality of users devices, an entry associated with a price and 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 amount of events; determining, for each user of each user device, a measure of difficulty associated with the corresponding predictions associated with each corresponding user; determining, based on the corresponding price received from each user device and the corresponding measure of difficulty associated with the corresponding predictions associated with each corresponding user, a quantity of points for each user for the gaming session; determining, for each user, a portion of the quantity of points associated with an amount of correct predictions of the corresponding predictions associated with each corresponding user; and sending, to each user, an indication of a respective award associated with the portion of the quantity of points associated with each corresponding user. If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, include a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, the limitations fall under the abstract ideas judicial exception and therefore recite ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, claims 1, and 11 recite abstract ideas.
Representative Claim 1: A method comprising: determining, by a computing device, a plurality of events for a gaming session; receiving, from each user device of a plurality of users devices, an entry associated with a price and 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 amount of events; determining, for each user of each user device, a measure of difficulty associated with the corresponding predictions associated with each corresponding user; determining, based on the corresponding price received from each user device and the corresponding measure of difficulty associated with the corresponding predictions associated with each corresponding user, a quantity of points for each user for the gaming session; determining, for each user, a portion of the quantity of points associated with an amount of correct predictions of the corresponding predictions associated with each corresponding user; and sending, to each user, an indication of a respective award associated with the portion of the quantity of points associated with each corresponding user.
Representative Claim 11: A method comprising: determining, by a computing device, based on a plurality of price entries from a plurality of users and a plurality of prediction inputs from the plurality of users, a quantity of points associated with a gaming session; determining, for each user, a portion of the quantity of points associated with an amount of correct predictions associated with each corresponding user; determining, for each user, based on the amount of correct predictions associated with the plurality of users satisfying a win-rate threshold, an increase in a respective award associated with the portion of the quantity of points associated with each corresponding user; and sending, to each user, an indication of the respective award associated with each corresponding user.
(Examiner notes: The underlined claim terms above are interpreted as additional elements beyond the abstract idea and are further analyzed under Step 2A - Prong Two)
The additional elements are instructions for applying the judicial exceptions with a generic computing device as, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements of a user device, and a computing device are generic computer components for performing the above method, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements are generic components of a computing device used to apply the abstract idea.
Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the recited steps of determining a number of events for a gaming session, receiving an entry associated with a price and number of events, receiving a prediction associated with each event, determining a measure of difficulty associated with the corresponding predictions, determining a quantity of points for each user for the gaming session, determining points awarded to each user based on the amount of predictions that user got correct, and sending each user an award based on the number points that user has (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), then it also falls within the “Mental Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas. The recited steps are a simulation that applies an abstract idea, specifically mental processes (observation (receiving an entry associated with a price and number of events, receiving a prediction associated with each event, sending each user an award based on the number points that user has), evaluation (determining points awarded to each user based on the amount of predictions that user got correct), and/or judgement (determining a number of events for a gaming session, determining a measure of difficulty associated with the corresponding predictions, determining a quantity of points for each user for the gaming session)). If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, include a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (CMOHA), the limitations fall under the abstract ideas judicial exception and therefore recite ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, claims 1, and 11 recite abstract ideas.
Dependent Claims 2-10, and 12-20 further narrow the abstract ideas of determining a number of events for a gaming session, receiving an entry associated with a price and number of events, receiving a prediction associated with each event, determining a measure of difficulty associated with the corresponding predictions, determining a quantity of points for each user for the gaming session, determining points awarded to each user based on the amount of predictions that user got correct, and sending each user an award based on the number points that user has (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), then it also falls within the “Mental Processes” and is an abstract idea and then it also falls within the “Organizing Human Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas and then also falls within the “Organizing Human Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Independent claim(s) 1, and 11 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claims 1, and 11 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Under Step 2A Prong 2 the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A - Prong Two: In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “determining a number of events for a gaming session”, “receiving an entry associated with a price and number of events”, “receiving a prediction associated with each event”, “determining a measure of difficulty associated with the corresponding predictions”, “determining a quantity of points for each user for the gaming session”, “determining points awarded to each user based on the amount of predictions that user got correct”, and “sending each user an award based on the number points that user has” etc. (Claims 1, and 11) are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Similarly, the limitations of applying “determining a number of events for a gaming session”, “receiving an entry associated with a price and number of events”, “receiving a prediction associated with each event”, “determining a measure of difficulty associated with the corresponding predictions”, “determining a quantity of points for each user for the gaming session”, “determining points awarded to each user based on the amount of predictions that user got correct”, and “sending each user an award based on the number points that user has” etc. Independent Claim(s) 1, and 11, and dependent claims 2-10, and 12-20 are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components in a vehicle. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the additional limitations beyond the abstract idea identified above, serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to computerized environments (e.g., determining a number of events for a gaming session, receiving an entry associated with a price and number of events, receiving a prediction associated with each event, determining a measure of difficulty associated with the corresponding predictions, determining a quantity of points for each user for the gaming session, determining points awarded to each user based on the amount of predictions that user got correct, and sending each user an award based on the number points that user has etc.). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The recited additional element(s) of determining a number of events for a gaming session, receiving an entry associated with a price and number of events, receiving a prediction associated with each event, determining a measure of difficulty associated with the corresponding predictions, determining a quantity of points for each user for the gaming session, determining points awarded to each user based on the amount of predictions that user got correct, and sending each user an award based on the number points that user has (Claim(s) 1, and 11), additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claims 2-10, and 12-20 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the identified additional elements in independent claim(s) 1, and 11, and dependent claims 2-10, and 12-20 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The recited additional element(s) of determining a number of events for a gaming session, receiving an entry associated with a price and number of events, receiving a prediction associated with each event, determining a measure of difficulty associated with the corresponding predictions, determining a quantity of points for each user for the gaming session, determining points awarded to each user based on the amount of predictions that user got correct, and sending each user an award based on the number points that user has (Claim(s) 1, and 11), additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea) i.e. selecting users (i.e. using a user interface) is similar to “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”, is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here) (See MPEP 2106.05(d) (II)).
This conclusion is based on a factual determination. Applicant’s own disclosure in paragraphs [0013], and [0029] acknowledges that “Furthermore, the methods and systems may take the form of a computer program product on a computer-readable storage medium having computer- readable program instructions (e.g., computer software) embodied in the storage medium. More particularly, the present methods and systems may take the form of web-implemented computer software”, and “The input processing program 157 may include logic (e.g., hardware, software, firmware, etc.) that may be implemented (e.g., executed by the one or more processors 120) to process the user inputs received from one or more users, such as via one or more user devices 102” (i.e. conventional nature of using a computer and/or computer program). This additional element therefore does not ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or/and append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, and/or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
The dependent claims 2-10, and 12-20 are dependent from claims 1, and 11 and include all the limitations of the independent claims, but fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective independent claims is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). Therefore, the dependent claims recite the same abstract idea. The limitations of the dependent claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example:
The limitations of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 20, recite clarifications of events comprise a predicted outcome associated with a sporting event, an insurance or scorcher designation, predetermining an amount of users, having an award be proportional to amount of points earned by a user, having an indication comprise an award, determining a measure of difficult associated with prediction inputs, and determining a quantity of points associated with a gaming session. Such clarifications, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are merely defining/selecting a type of data to be manipulated which, per MPEP 2106.05(g), is insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
The limitations of claim 4, 7, 9, and 19 recite clarifications of determining quantity of points based on parameters associated with events, determining a total amount of winning points associated with a user, and notifying users via text message, push notification, or email. The limitations are further instructions for applying the judicial exceptions with a generic computing device/interface acting as an intermediary for performing the abstract ideas of determining a number of events for a gaming session, receiving an entry associated with a price and number of events, receiving a prediction associated with each event, determining a measure of difficulty associated with the corresponding predictions, determining a quantity of points for each user for the gaming session, determining points awarded to each user based on the amount of predictions that user got correct, and sending each user an award based on the number points that user has, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claims 1-20 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhagchandani et al. (US 2015/0141133 A1) in view of Amaitis et al. (US 2012/0034974 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Bhagchandani discloses a method ([0075] This embodiment will describe in further detail the method of betting above which will be termed dynamic pools betting in relation to FIGS. 4 and 17. In dynamic pools bet ting, users make predictions for a series of grouped events) comprising:
determining, by a computing device, a plurality of events for a gaming session ([0067] The first server 301 may be configured for transmitting possible outcomes for events to a plurality of clients 302, 303, and 304, [0083] There can be 1 event or 100+ events in a game);
receiving, from each user device, a prediction associated with each event of the plurality of events associated with the corresponding amount of events ([0068] Each client may be configured for displaying a plurality of possible outcomes for an event to a user (a player), for receiving selections of an outcome from the user, [0152] users may be required to select all 7 at the start to have a full entry);
determining, for each user of each user device, a measure of difficulty associated with the corresponding predictions associated with each corresponding user ([0059] The odds may be quite low (high level of difficulty) and, therefore, the points to be awarded may be quite high 30 points, [0120] Odds effectively represent the probability of an event happening. Odds are used to determine points and, because odds are constantly updating, users may be permitted to change their selections or update their points throughout preplay and inplay);
determining, based on the corresponding price received from each user device and the corresponding measure of difficulty associated with the corresponding predictions associated with each corresponding user, a quantity of points for each user for the gaming session ([0060] The points that are calculated may be calculated based upon the odds and a stake wagered by the player. In one embodiment, the stake wagered is predefined for all players);
determining, for each user, a quantity of points associated with an amount of correct predictions of the corresponding predictions associated with each corresponding user (Fig. 2 Element 202 – The player accumulates points if the outcome eventuates [0051] When the player selects the outcome, the points that will be accumulated by that player if the outcome eventuates will the points calculated from the odds at the time of selection); and
sending, an indication of a respective award associated with the portion of the quantity of points associated with each corresponding user ([0227] Winnings are calculated when each event is completed, when the last event is complete the final winnings are calculated and added (sent) to the leaderboard tables).
However, Bhagchandani is not relied upon disclosing receiving, from each user device of a plurality of users devices, an entry associated with a price and an amount of events of the plurality of events, wherein each user device is associated with a user; determining, for each user, a portion of the quantity of points associated with an amount of correct predictions of the corresponding predictions associated with each corresponding user; and sending, to each user, an indication of a respective award associated with the portion of the quantity of points associated with each corresponding user.
Amaitis teaches receiving, from each user device of a plurality of users devices, an entry associated with a price and an amount of events of the plurality of events, wherein each user device is associated with a user ([0113] A parlay wager may include a wager on a plurality of games, a plurality of game participants, and/or a plurality of events, [0116] The amount of a payout may be based on an amount wagered, [0118] a maximum number of elements (an amount of events of a the plurality of events) may be included, a minimum number of elements (an amount of events of a the plurality of events) may be included, [0144] receive a selection of elements for a parlay wager);
determining, for each user, a portion of the quantity of points associated with an amount of correct predictions of the corresponding predictions associated with each corresponding user ([0131] assigning a portion of a pari-mutuel pool to each wagered that has a highest number of winning elements, a lowest number of losing wagers, a highest set of points based on a comparison of odds and wins and losses as desired); and
sending, to each user, an indication of a respective award associated with the portion of the quantity of points associated with each corresponding user ([0090] At the end of the hand, a message is displayed informing the player (user) of the results of their bets, i.e., the amounts won or lost).
Bhagchandani and Amaitis are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of betting/wagering methods and systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying a method, as disclosed by Bhagchandani, further including receiving, from each user device of a plurality of users devices, an entry associated with a price and an amount of events of the plurality of events, wherein each user device is associated with a user; determining, for each user, a portion of the quantity of points associated with an amount of correct predictions of the corresponding predictions associated with each corresponding user; and sending, to each user, an indication of a respective award associated with the portion of the quantity of points associated with each corresponding user, as taught by Amaitis for the purpose of allowing players/users to make bets on a plurality of games, events, and/or teams in the form of a parlay wager, thereby allowing players/users to win more if there are more winning elements in the parlay wager (Amaitis, [0113]-[0118]).
Regarding Claim 2, Bhagchandani discloses wherein each event of the plurality of events comprises a predicted outcome associated with a player statistic associated with a sports event ([0048] In one embodiment 100 shown in FIG.1, the method involves players selecting outcomes for an event in step 101. If the outcomes eventuate (predicted outcome), the players accumulate points based upon the odds of those outcomes occurring in step 102, [0049] which team or individual scores a specific point or points (player statistic), or reaches a specific points level, or any type of event within any type of sport or activity).
Amaitis further teaches wherein each event of the plurality of events comprises a predicted outcome associated with a player statistic associated with a sports event ([0095] For example, some gaming operators allow users to bet on performance parameters within a game. Such as whether a particular player will strike out (player statistic) in a particular at-bat in a baseball game).
Regarding Claim 3, Bhagchandani is not relied upon disclosing wherein the amount of events comprises at least two events.
Amaitis teaches wherein the amount of events comprises at least two events ([0019] The term “plurality” means “two or more', [0113] A parlay wager may include a wager on… a plurality of events, [0117] a 2 element parlay may pay 13 to 5).
Regarding Claim 4, Bhagchandani is not relied upon disclosing wherein determining the quantity of points comprises determining the quantity of points based on one or more parameters associated with an amount of events.
Amaitis teaches wherein determining the quantity of points comprises determining the quantity of points based on one or more parameters associated with an amount of events ([0116] The amount of a payout may be based on an amount wagered. The amount of the payout may be based on the number of winning elements (amount/number of events). The amount of the payout may be based on the number of losing elements (amount/number of events). The amount of the payout may be based on the number of tied elements. The amount of the payout may be based on the number of elements. The amount of the payout may be based on the odds of each element. The amount of the payout may be determined in any manner desired).
Regarding Claim 6, Bhagchandani discloses wherein the gaming session comprises an amount of users ([0174] the size of the private pool may be limited (indicates potential for a predetermined amount of users), for example, to 100 users, and the highest score is rewarded).
However, Bhagchandani is not relied upon disclosing wherein the gaming session comprises a predetermined amount of users.
Amaitis teaches wherein the gaming session comprises a predetermined amount of users ([0088] Up to seven players (predetermined amount) can be assigned to the game unit 45).
Regarding Claim 7, Bhagchandani discloses wherein the respective award is determined based on dividing a total amount of winning points with an amount of winning points associated with a user ([0065] winnings are allocated to the single pool also based upon the distribution of accumulated points).
Regarding Claim 8, Bhagchandani discloses wherein the respective award is proportional to the portion of the quantity of points for the corresponding user ([0065] winnings are allocated to the single pool also based upon the distribution of accumulated points (based on proportion of points contributed by each user/player)).
Regarding Claim 9, Bhagchandani is not relied upon disclosing wherein the indication comprises one or more of a text message, a push notification, or an email message.
Amaitis teaches wherein the indication comprises one or more of a text message, a push notification, or an email message ([0090] a message (functionally analogous to a text message or push notification) is displayed informing the player of the results of their bets, i.e., the amounts won or lost, [0119] A parlay wagering interface may include… a smart phone app (implies the functionality for receiving text messages, emails, and/or push notifications)).
Regarding Claim 10, Bhagchandani is not relied upon disclosing wherein the indication comprises the award.
Amaitis teaches wherein the indication comprises the award ([0090] a message (indication) is displayed informing the player of the results of their bets, i.e., the amounts won (award) or lost).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhagchandani et al. (US 2015/0141133 A1) in view of Amaitis et al. (US 2012/0034974 A1), and in further view of Stupak (US 2002/0113367 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Bhagchandani is not relied upon disclosing wherein the one or more parameters comprises one or one of an insurance designation or a scorcher designation.
Amaitis teaches wherein the one or more parameters comprises one or one of an insurance designation or a scorcher designation ([0116] there may be some maximum number and/or percentage of losing elements allowed (functionally analogous to an insurance designation) for a player to win an award for a parlay wager)
However, Amaitis is not relied upon teaching wherein the one or more parameters comprises one or one of an insurance designation or a scorcher designation.
Stupak teaches wherein the one or more parameters comprises one or one of an insurance designation or a scorcher designation ([0003] If all (ten out of ten) or substantially all (e.g. eight out of ten or better) of the player's picks are winners (insurance designation), the player wins and is paid based upon the wager)
Bhagchandani and Stupak are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of betting/wagering methods and systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying a method, as disclosed by Bhagchandani, as previously modified by Amaitis, further including wherein the one or more parameters comprises one or one of an insurance designation or a scorcher designation, as taught by Stupak for the purpose of allowing a player/user to wager on a set of potential outcomes while limiting the player’s exposure to loss (Stupak, [0003]-[0008]).
Claims 11-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhagchandani et al. (US 2015/0141133 A1) in view of Amaitis et al. (US 2012/0034974 A1), in view of Litman (US 10,870,059 B1), and in further view of Jaramillo (US 2021/0192668 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Bhagchandani discloses a method ([0075] This embodiment will describe in further detail the method of betting above which will be termed dynamic pools betting in relation to FIGS. 4 and 17. In dynamic pools betting, users make predictions for a series of grouped events) comprising:
determining, by a computing device, based on a price entry from a plurality of users and a plurality of prediction inputs from the plurality of users, a quantity of points associated with a gaming session ([0060] The points that are calculated may be calculated based upon the odds (prediction inputs) and a stake (price entry) wagered by the player. In one embodiment, the stake wagered is predefined for all players (plurality of users));
determining, for each user, a portion of the quantity of points associated with each corresponding user (Fig. 2 Element 202 – The player accumulates points if the outcome eventuates, [0051] When the player selects the outcome, the points that will be accumulated by that player if the outcome eventuates will the points calculated from the odds at the time of selection); and
sending, an indication of the respective award associated with each corresponding user ([0227] Winnings are calculated when each event is completed, when the last event is complete the final winnings are calculated and added to the leaderboard tables).
However, Bhagchandani is not relied upon disclosing determining, by a computing device, based on a plurality of price entries; determining, for each user, a portion of the quantity of points associated with an amount of correct predictions associated with each corresponding user; determining, for each user, based on the amount of correct predictions associated with the plurality of users satisfying a win-rate threshold, an increase in a respective award associated with the portion of the quantity of points associated with each corresponding; and sending, to each user, an indication of the respective award associated with each corresponding user.
Amaitis teaches determining, by a computing device, based on a plurality of price entries ([0144] An apparatus comprising: a non-transitory medium having stored thereon a plurality of instructions that when executed by a processor cause the computing device to: receive a selection of elements for a parlay wager (parlays have a plurality of price entries));
determining, for each user, a portion of the quantity of points associated with an amount of correct predictions associated with each corresponding user ([0131] assigning a portion of a pari-mutuel pool to each wagered that has a highest number of winning elements, a lowest number of losing wagers, a highest set of points based on a comparison of odds and wins and losses as desired); and
sending, to each user, an indication of the respective award associated with each corresponding user ([0090] At the end of the hand, a message is displayed informing the player (each user) of the results of their bets, i.e., the amounts won or lost).
However, Amaitis is not relied upon teaching determining, for each user, based on the amount of correct predictions associated with the plurality of users satisfying a win-rate threshold, an increase in a respective award associated with the portion of the quantity of points associated with each corresponding user.
Litman teaches determining, for each user, based on the amount of correct predictions associated with the plurality of users satisfying a win-rate threshold, an award (Col. 10 Lines 39-42 For example, where a statistical average winning point total is 300 fantasy sport points (win-rate threshold), totals of over 350, over 400 or over 500 can be awarded a special award out of the total investment in the fantasy sport contest).
However, Litman is not relied upon teaching an increase in a respective award associated with the portion of the quantity of points associated with each corresponding user.
Jaramillo teaches an increase in a respective award associated with the portion of the quantity of points associated with each corresponding user ([0168] the second entry fee pot is paid out in one or more round prizes over the course of the multi-round fantasy contest, [0169] the second entry fee pot may comprise a range from twenty percent (20%) to eighty percent (80%) of the total entry fees. In embodiments having a second entry fee pot, the contest pot becomes a first entry fee pot comprising the reciprocal portion or remainder of the total entry fees).
Bhagchandani and Litman are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of a method for wagering/betting on games. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying a method, as disclosed by Bhagchandani, as previously modified by Amaitis, further including determining, for each user, based on the amount of correct predictions associated with the plurality of users satisfying a win-rate threshold, an award, as taught by Litman for the purpose of structuring awards based on extremely high point result outcomes (Litman, Col. 10 Lines 26-48).
Bhagchandani and Jaramillo are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of designing payout structures where users accumulate points in a game played against a plurality of players. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying a method, as disclosed by Bhagchandani, as previously modified by Amaitis and Litman, further including an increase in a respective award associated with the portion of the quantity of points associated with each corresponding user, as taught by Jaramillo for the purpose of paying out participants in one or more rounds over the course of a multi-round contest (Jaramillo, [0168]).
Regarding Claim 12, Bhagchandani discloses wherein determining, based on the plurality of price entries from the plurality of users and the plurality of prediction inputs from the plurality of users, the quantity of points associated with the gaming session comprises:
determining, based on the plurality of price entries from the plurality of users and a measure of difficulty associated with each prediction input from each user of the plurality of users, the quantity of points associated with the gaming session ([0060] The points that are calculated may be calculated based upon the odds (measure of difficulty) and a stake (price entry) wagered by the player, [0061] In another embodiment 200 shown within FIG. 2, players (plurality of players) within pools select outcomes for an event in step 201 and accumulate points if the outcomes eventuate in step 202. Points for a selection of players within the pool are totalled in step 203. And winnings from the pools are allocated across the pool with the largest points total in step 204, [0171] Users can decide what pools to put each of their entries, and they can have the same or potentially different entries (plurality of price entries) for each pool).
Regarding Claim 13, Bhagchandani is not relied upon disclosing wherein determining the quantity of points associated with the gaming session comprises determining the quantity of points associated with the gaming session based on one or more parameters associated with each amount of events entry from each user of the plurality of users.
Amaitis teaches wherein determining the quantity of points associated with the gaming session comprises determining the quantity of points associated with the gaming session based on one or more parameters associated with each amount of events entry from each user of the plurality of users ([0116] The amount of a payout (quantity of points) may be based on an amount wagered. The amount of the payout may be based on the number of winning elements (one or more parameters associated with each amount of events). The amount of the payout may be based on the number of losing elements. The amount of the payout may be based on the number of tied elements. The amount of the payout may be based on the number of elements. The amount of the payout may be based on the odds of each element. The amount of the payout may be determined in any manner desired).
Regarding Claim 15, Bhagchandani is not relied upon disclosing wherein the plurality of prediction inputs are associated with a plurality of events.
Amaitis teaches wherein the plurality of prediction inputs are associated with a plurality of events ([0019] The term “plurality” means “two or more', [0113] A parlay wager may include a wager on… a plurality of events, [0117] a 2 element parlay may pay 13 to 5).
Regarding Claim 16, Bhagchandani discloses wherein each event of the plurality of events comprises a predicted outcome associated with a player statistic associated with a sports game ([0048] In one embodiment 100 shown in FIG.1, the method involves players selecting outcomes for an event in step 101. If the outcomes eventuate (predicted outcome), the players accumulate points based upon the odds of those outcomes occurring in step 102, [0049] which team or individual scores a specific point or points (player statistic), or reaches a specific points level, or any type of event within any type of sport or activity).
Amaitis further teaches wherein each event of the plurality of events comprises a predicted outcome associated with a player statistic associated with a sports game ([0095] For example, some gaming operators allow users to bet on performance parameters within a game. Such as whether a particular player will strike out (player statistic) in a particular at-bat in a baseball game).
Regarding Claim 17, Bhagchandani is not relied upon disclosing wherein the each prediction input of the plurality of prediction inputs is associated with at least two events.
Amaitis teaches wherein the each prediction input of the plurality of prediction inputs is associated with at least two events ([0019] The term “plurality” means “two or more', [0113] A parlay wager may include a wager on… a plurality of events, [0117] a 2 element parlay may pay 13 to 5).
Regarding Claim 18, Bhagchandani discloses wherein the gaming session comprises a predetermined amount of users ([0174] the size of the private pool may be limited (indicates potential for a predetermined amount of users), for example, to 100 users, and the highest score is rewarded).
However, Bhagchandani is not relied upon disclosing wherein the gaming session comprises a predetermined amount of users.
Amaitis teaches wherein the gaming session comprises a predetermined amount of users ([0088] Up to seven players (predetermined amount) can be assigned to the game unit 45).
Regarding Claim 19, Bhagchandani is not relied upon disclosing wherein the indication comprises one or more of a text message, a push notification, or an email message.
Amaitis teaches wherein the indication comprises one or more of a text message, a push notification, or an email message ([0090] a message (functionally analogous to a text message or push notification) is displayed informing the player of the results of their bets, i.e., the amounts won or lost, [0119] A parlay wagering interface may include… a smart phone app (implies the functionality for receiving text messages, emails, and/or push notifications)).
Regarding Claim 20, Bhagchandani is not relied upon disclosing wherein the indication comprises the award.
Amaitis teaches wherein the indication comprises the award ([0090] a message (indication) is displayed informing the player of the results of their bets, i.e., the amounts won (the award) or lost).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhagchandani et al. (US 2015/0141133 A1) in view of Amaitis et al. (US 2012/0034974 A1), in view of Litman (US 10,870,059 B1), in view of Jaramillo (US 2021/0192668 A1), and in further view of Stupak (US 2002/0113367 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Bhagchandani is not relied upon disclosing wherein the one or more parameters comprises one or one of an insurance designation or a scorcher designation.
Amaitis teaches wherein the one or more parameters comprises one or one of an insurance designation or a scorcher designation ([0116] there may be some maximum number and/or percentage of losing elements allowed (functionally analogous to an insurance designation) for a player to win an award for a parlay wager).
However, Amaitis is not relied upon teaching wherein the one or more parameters comprises one or one of an insurance designation or a scorcher designation.
Stupak teaches wherein the one or more parameters comprises one or one of an insurance designation or a scorcher designation ([0003] If all (ten out of ten) or substantially all (e.g. eight out of ten or better) of the player's picks are winners (insurance designation), the player wins and is paid based upon the wager).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Book (US 2016/0314656 A1) teaches gaming systems and methods for providing (pool) awards based on predictive player inputs (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMID TARIQ HAFIZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-4629. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM, Monday through Thursday.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at 571-270-1344. 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.
/HAMID TARIQ HAFIZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights