Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 pass step 1 of the test for eligibility.
As per step 2A prong one, the claims are evaluated to determine whether the claims recite a judicial exception. Representative claim 1 recites, with emphasis added:
An event pick duplication system for duplicating a first event pick placed at a first time, the event pick duplication system comprising:
memory storing computer-executable instructions; and
a hardware processor in communication with the memory, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the hardware processor, cause the hardware processor to:
process a first request received from a first user via a user interface to view event picks placed by a second user and by a third user wherein the second user placed the first event pick at the first time
in response to reception of the first request, cause the user interface to display to the first user, the first event pick placed at the first time
process a second request received via the user interface to generate a second event pick that is a duplicate of the first event pick;
determine that odds of pick terms of the first event pick placed at the first time have changed at a second time after the first time;
in response to the determination that the odds of the pick terms of the first event pick have changed at the second time, generate second pick terms with the changed odds;
generate user interface data that, when rendered by a user device, causes the user device to display a user interface that depicts a data field that identifies the second event pick as having the second pick terms, wherein the data field comprises a data entry field configured for a user to enter a number of pick entries;
in response to a confirmation of a placement of the second event pick, store data associated with the second event pick in a placed pick data store; and
adjust user entries data in a user entries data store based on a value entered into the data entry field.
The above underlined portion of representative claim 1 recites a judicial exception because they are certain methods of organizing human activity, as they are following rules or instructions, as the invention is directed towards rules for conducting a wagering game. Further they are mental processes as a human could perform the steps merely mentally or with pen and paper, as a human could show or describe picks of other players, and offer a first and second event pick verbally or via pen and paper in the same manner claimed by the claimed invention.
Next, as per step 2A prong two, the claims are evaluated to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
The elements recited above that are not underlined in representative claim 1 comprise the additional elements. As discussed in more detail below, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Memory storing computer executable instructions, and a hardware processor in communication with the memory is/are not an integration into a practical application as it is mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
User interfaces and data fields/stores is/are extra-solution activity as these extra solution activities are insignificant data gathering and data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Next, as per step 2B, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception.
Memory storing computer executable instructions, and a hardware processor in communication with the memory does not amount to significantly more as it is mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
User interfaces and data fields/stores is/are extra-solution activity as these extra solution activities are well known data gathering and data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), thus they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The dependent claims of 2-6, 8-13, 15-20 are further rejected under 101 for the reasons described above as they simply further define the abstract idea (which makes the abstract idea no less abstract) without adding significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) and do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Further, taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huke (US 20220101694)
In claims 1, 7, 13, 14, and 20 Huke discloses
memory storing computer executable instructions and a hardware processor in communication with the memory, wherein the computer executable instructions, when executed by the hardware processor, cause the hardware processor to: (paragraph 16)
process a first request received from a first user via a user interface to view event picks placed by a second user and by a third user wherein the second user placed the first event pick at the first time (paragraphs 74-75 discloses a contacts list which shows wagering history of each contact, as well as receiving wager invitation “messages”, wherein users have multiple contact users who may invite them as per figure 2 which shows players with up to 5 contact user IDs.)
in response to reception of the first request, cause the user interface to display, to the first user, the first event pick placed at the first time (paragraph 74 “the invitation prompts the one or more contacts to place a wager on the play”)
process a second request received via the user interface to generate a second event pick that is a duplicate of the first event pick; (paragraph 74 “the wager invitation prompts the one or more contacts to place a wager on the play and further join a chat conversation with the user who selected the contact to receive an invitation. In an embodiment, the invitation prompts the contact, user Joes Smith, to wager on the same play as the user Bob Jones. Polling of the wagering network 108, may be done at step 410, for a message confirming that a contact accepted the invitation. The confirmation message may include details of a wager placed by the contact.”)
determine that odds of pick terms of the first event pick placed at the first time have changed at a second time after the first time; in response to the determination that the odds of the pick terms of the first event pick have changed at the second time, generate second pick terms with the changed odds; (paragraph 53 “odds could be changed in the real time sports for that player”. Paragraph 73 “current odds are retrieved at step 304 for available wagers from an odds database”, “the payout is determined based upon the odds accepted when the user placed the wager”)
generate user interface data that, when rendered by a user device, causes the user device to display updated user interface that depicts a data field that identifies the second event pick as having the second pick terms, wherein the data field comprises a data entry field configured for a user to enter a number of pick entries (paragraph 74 “the wager includes a wager amount, a win condition, and odds”)
in response to a confirmation of a placement of the second event pick, store data associated with the second event pick in a placed pick data store; and adjust user entries data in a user entries data store based on a value entered into the data entry field. (paragraph 73 “updating the account balance of the user at step 322 in the user database based on the result”)
In claims 2, 8, and 15 Huke discloses the odds of the pick terms of the first event pick have changed using current odds data from an odds feed provided by an odds provider (paragraph 73, odds provider is the odds database)
In claims 3, 9, and 16 Huke discloses in response to rendering the user interface data on the user device, subscribe to the current odds data in the odds feed provided by the odds provider in association with the duplicate pick terms (paragraph 73 the current odds are pulled and offered for available wagers)
In claims 4, 10, and 17 Huke discloses determine that the odds of the pick term of the first event pick have changed using risk management data provided by a managed trading service and the current odds data (paragraph 61 “number of bets they can handle, a limit of wagers they can take on either side of a bet before they will move the line or odds off the opening line”)
In claims 5, 11, and 18 Huke discloses the user interface comprises a user interface element, and wherein the request to generate the second event pick that is the duplicate of the first event pick is generated in response to the user interacting with the user interface element (paragraph 64, 68, bets are taken thru a user interface. Paragraphs 73-74 shows the duplicate being generated for the player and displayed)
In claims 6, 12, and 19 Huke discloses publish the placement of the second event pick on a social feed of a second user that follows the user that placed the second event pick (paragraph 57 discloses use of social media, further paragraphs 73-74 discloses setting up a message to show the bets which would be a social feed)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s prior art arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that the instant application does not recite an abstract idea, arguing that it includes a structured GUI. Even if the GUI of the instant application were to overcome the 101 in step 2A prong 2 or step 2B, it would not be a sufficient argument that there was no abstract idea in step 2A prong 1. Applicant argues that the instant application is not a mathematical concept, however examiner’s rejection relied upon the abstract ideas being a mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity. As such the arguments are not sufficient
Applicant argues that the claims are directed to a practical application, however applicant appears to mostly point to steps which were found to be abstract. With respect to the user interface, this does not amount to significantly more, as the abstract idea is simply generally claimed to be displayed upon a user interface, and no particulars of the user interface are positively identified beyond displaying the information of the abstract idea. Applicant argues that these steps reduce the number of navigational steps, however there is nothing in particular of the instant application which reduces the number of navigational steps as best understood by examiner, it appears to examiner that the instant application simply performs an abstract idea upon an interface, and the number of navigational steps required is not claimed or limited as such, nor is it reduced as compared to some other baseline prior way of navigating an interface.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS HAYNES HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-3905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/THOMAS H HENRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715