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 .
Procedural Summary
This is responsive to the claims 2/17/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Signed copies of the IDS’ are attached.
The Drawings filed 2/17/2025 are noted.
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.
Step 1:
The claims are drawn to process, apparatus and CRM categories.
Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter
Step 2A:
Prong 1: Does the Claim recite an Abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Representative Claim 1 is analyzed below, with italicized limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea, noting that independent Claims 11 & 16 recite substantially similar limitations but being drawn to different statutory classes.
Claim 1: “A system, comprising: a data store; and at least one computing device in communication with the data store, wherein the at least one computing device is configured to: determine a desired multiplier corresponding to at least one lineup for a particular user account; determine a plurality of options corresponding to the at least one lineup, wherein each of the plurality of options are associated with a respective multiplier value; receive a selection of a first selected option of the plurality of options for the at least one lineup; filter a plurality of remaining options of the plurality of options based on the desired multiplier, the respective multiplier of the first selected option, and the respective multiplier for each of the plurality of remaining options; receive at least one selection of at least one additional option from the plurality of remaining options for the at least one lineup, wherein the respective multiplier value for each of a plurality of selected options combine to equal the desired multiplier and the plurality of selected options comprises the first selected option and the at least one additional option; and enter the at least one lineup for the particular user account with the plurality of selected options.”
Claim 11: “A method, comprising: receiving, via at least one computing device, a selection of a desired multiplier corresponding to at least one lineup for a particular user account; determining, via the at least one computing device, a plurality of options corresponding to the at least one lineup, wherein each of the plurality of options are associated with a respective multiplier value; determining, via the at least one computing device, a first selected option of the plurality of options for the at least one lineup; filtering, via the at least one computing device, a plurality of remaining options of the plurality of options based on the desired multiplier, the respective multiplier of the first selected option, and the respective multiplier for each of the plurality of remaining options; determining, via the at least one computing device, at least one selection of at least one additional option from the plurality of remaining options for the at least one lineup, wherein the respective multiplier value for each of a plurality of selected options combine to equal the desired multiplier and the plurality of selected options comprises the first selected option and the at least one additional option; and entering, via the at least one computing device, the at least one lineup for the particular user account with the plurality of selected options.”
Claim 16: “A non-transitory computer-readable medium embodying a program that, when executed by at least one computing device, causes the at least one computing device to: determine a desired multiplier corresponding to at least one lineup for a particular user account; determine a plurality of options corresponding to the at least one lineup, wherein each of the plurality of options are associated with a respective multiplier value; receive a selection of a first selected option of the plurality of options for the at least one lineup; filter a plurality of remaining options of the plurality of options based on the desire multiplier, the respective multiplier of the first selected option, and the respective multiplier for each of the plurality of remaining options; receive at least one selection of at least one additional option from the plurality of remaining options for the at least one lineup, wherein the respective multiplier value for each of a plurality of selected options combine to equal the desired multiplier and the plurality of selected options comprises the first selected option and the at least one additional option; and enter the at least one lineup for the particular user account with the plurality of selected options.”
The italicized limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG1:
“Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity”: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
The claims are drawn to methods and systems for a betting interface for presenting options, multipliers, selections, risks and scoring. This is managing personal behavior and interactions between people. Betting interfaces and options also represent social activities (sports wagering) and following rules and instructions (i.e., accepting a user’s betting selections, organizing and resolving them.)
Further, to the extent the claims are drawn to how a game is played, this represents interactions between players and a social activity. It also represents following rules/instructions (i.e., rules defining how the sports wagering game is conducted.)
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
Although the claims recite additional limitations, these limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require additional limitations drawn to a computing system with a processor and memory, (a GUI).
These additional limitations:
Do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a));
Fail to recite an improved way of training a machine learning model that protected the model’s knowledge about previous tasks while allowing it to effectively learn new tasks, and do not recite improvements to computer component or system performance based upon adjustments to parameters of a machine learning model associated with tasks or workstreams2;
Do not apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)) and
Fail to effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)).
Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional computer implementation.
For example, as pointed out above, the claimed invention recites additional elements facilitating implementation of the abstract process. However, these elements viewed individually and as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, U.S. Pub. No.: 2017/0103615 A1 shows the conventionality of electronic systems with servers and GUIs implementing sports wagering, see e.g. Fig. 1 and related description. These elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Additionally, Applicant’s Specifications acknowledge that generic devices including mobile devices are used to implement the claimed invention.3
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. Their collective functions provide conventional computer implementation of an abstract process.
Moreover, the claims do not recite improvements to another technology or technical field. Nor, do the claims improve the functioning of the underlying computer itself -- they only recite generic computing elements. Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing: the underlying computing elements remain the same.
Concerning preemption, the Federal Circuit precedent controls4:
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of cffDNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 2, 6-11, 14 & 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wexler et al. (U.S. Pub. No.: 2021/0358270 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 11, 14 & 16-20: Wexler discloses a system (Fig. 1), comprising: a data store; and at least one computing device in communication with the data store, wherein the at least one computing device is configured to: determine a desired multiplier, (¶¶ 47, 204), corresponding to at least one lineup for a particular user account, (Fig. 1); determine a plurality of options corresponding to the at least one lineup, wherein each of the plurality of options are associated with a respective multiplier value, (Fig. 5); receive a selection of a first selected option of the plurality of options for the at least one lineup; filter a plurality of remaining options of the plurality of options based on the desired multiplier, (¶ 204).
Wexler discloses the respective multiplier of the first selected option, (¶ 204), and the respective multiplier for each of the plurality of remaining options; receive at least one selection of at least one additional option from the plurality of remaining options for the at least one lineup, (Figs. 4-7 and related descriptions), wherein the respective multiplier value for each of a plurality of selected options combine to equal the desired multiplier and the plurality of selected options comprises the first selected option and the at least one additional option; and enter the at least one lineup for the particular user account with the plurality of selected options, (Figs. 4, 5, 8 & related descriptions.)
Regarding Claim 2: Wexler discloses wherein the at least one computing device is further configured to in response to receiving the at least one additional option, further filter the plurality of remaining options based on the desired multiplier, the respective multiplier of the first selected option, the respective multiplier for the at least one additional option, and the respective multiplier for each of the plurality of remaining options, (e.g., ¶ 204).
Regarding Claim 6: Wexler discloses wherein the at least one computing device is further configured to combine the respective multiplier value for each of the plurality of selected options by multiplying the respective multiplier value for each of the plurality of selected options together, (¶ 204.)
Regarding Claim 7: Wexler discloses the at least one computing device is further configured to filter a plurality of remaining options of the plurality of options based on a correlation score, wherein the correlation score defines a correlation coefficient between a two or more options, (¶ 204.)
Regarding Claim 8: Wexler discloses wherein the at least one computing device is further configured to reject a combination of the two or more options in response to identifying that the correlation score falls above a correlation score threshold, (e.g., ¶¶ 111, 245.)
Regarding Claim 9: Wexler discloses wherein the at least one computing device is further configured to filter a plurality of remaining options of the plurality of options based on a risk score, wherein the risk score quantitates an amount of risk incurred by an operator, (e.g., ¶¶ 44, 190, 201.)
Regarding Claim 10: Wexler discloses, wherein the at least one computing device is further configured to reject a subset of the plurality of options in response to identifying that the risk score falls above a risk score threshold, (e.g., ¶¶ 44, 190, 201.)
Examiner’s Note
It is noted that Claims 3-5, 12, 13 & 15 recite limitations that are not shown by the prior art. However, due to the outstanding § 101 rejection, no claim is formally indicated as allowable.
Specifically, the closest prior art, Wexler et al. (U.S. Pub. No.: 2021/0358270 A1), of record herein and cited on attached 892 form, fails to disclose, suggest or render obvious, in combination with other claimed limitations:
Per Claims 3-5: filter the plurality of remaining options of the plurality of options by removing a subset of the plurality of remaining options with respective multipliers that fail to meet the first multiplier threshold.
Per Claims 12, 13: a plurality of additional lineups individually comprising a respective plurality of selected options of the plurality of options with respective multiplier values that combine to equal the desired multiplier.
Per Claims 15: randomly selecting, via the at least one computing device, the first selected option and the at least one additional option one at a time from an increasingly reduced subset of the plurality of options that meeting a threshold criteria for achieving the desired multiplier.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMKAR A DEODHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, generally 9am-5:30 pm.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached on 571-272-7147. 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.
/OMKAR A DEODHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
1 See MPEP 2106
2 Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential)
3 Specifications: [0124] From the foregoing, it will be understood that various aspects of the processes described herein are software processes that execute on computer systems that form parts of the system. Accordingly, it will be understood that various embodiments of the system described herein are generally implemented as specially-configured computers including various computer hardware components and, in many cases, significant additional features as compared to conventional or known computers, processes, or the like, as discussed in greater detail herein. Embodiments within the scope of the present disclosure also include computer-readable media for carrying or having computer-executable instructions or data structures stored thereon. Such computer-readable media can be any available media which can be accessed by a computer, or downloadable through communication networks.
By way of example, and not limitation, such computer-readable media can comprise various forms of data storage devices or media such as RAM, ROM, flash memory, EEPROM, CD-ROM, DVD, or other optical disk storage, magnetic disk storage, solid-state drives (SSDs) or other data storage devices, any type of removable non-volatile memories such as secure digital (SD), flash memory, memory stick, etc., or any other medium which can be used to carry or store computer program code in the form of computer-executable instructions or data structures and which can be accessed by a general-purpose computer, special purpose computer, specially-configured computer, mobile device, etc. (Emphasis Added.)
4: Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015)
Prosecution Insights