DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges receipt of amendment/arguments filed 07/01/2026. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below. Claims 1-20 remain pending, no Claims have been newly added, and no Claims have been canceled. Currently, Claims 4-5 have been amended. No new matter appears to have been entered.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 07/01/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patents 11,436,896, 12,008,866, and 12,354,446 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 is/are directed towards a statutory category they are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1, Yes).
Claim 1 recites, in part, the limitations of a platform; wherein the platform is operable to receive data from the live sporting event; wherein the platform is operable to generate odds based on the data from the live sporting event; wherein the platform is operable to receive at least one bet during the live sporting event from at least one user […]; […]; and wherein the platform is operable to impose a time delay for betting from the at least one user […] based on location information of the at least one user […]. These limitations, individually and in combination, describe or set forth the abstract idea in claim 1 (also substantially encompassed by independent claims 10 and 19). The Examiner notes that the specific limitations that describe or set forth the abstract idea in Step 2A Prong 1 can be identified either individually or in combination (see p. 54 of 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims recite limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer,” and that “courts have found requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The Examiner also notes that “both product claims (e.g., computer system, computer-readable medium, etc.) and process claims may recite mental processes” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements identified below do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
The claims also recite limitations that are considered a fundamental economic principle or practice (e.g., relating to commerce and economy), commercial interactions, business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The Examiner notes that certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (see p. 5 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility).
Therefore, the claims fall under the following enumerated groupings of abstract ideas: mental processes (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion)), and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)) (Step 2A, Prong 1, Yes).
Claim 1 recites the additional element(s) of “A system for betting on a live sporting event, comprising: a platform; wherein the platform is operable to receive data […]; wherein the platform is operable to generate […]; wherein the platform is operable to receive […] from at least one user device; wherein the platform is operable to access a global positioning system (GPS) or a geofencing system; and wherein the platform is operable to […] based on location information of the at least one user device obtained from the GPS or the geofencing system. These additional element(s) are recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation are generic processor(s) and/or generic computer component(s) that perform generic computer functions. The generic processor and/or generic computer component limitation(s) are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional element(s) are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computers and/or generic computer components does not integrate the judicial exception or amount to significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Using a computer to generate data, compute a result, and return the result to a user amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—some of the most basic functions of a computer. “[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter" (see pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements also amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Further, the courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or add significantly more. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim that integrates the judicial exception in to a practical application, nor do they amount to a claim that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 2, No).
Additionally, the specification makes it clear that the user device can be a generic computer.
[0066] One embodiment of the present invention is a closed system including at least one server and at least one database operable for network-based communication with at least one computing device with an interactive GUI. By way of example and not limitation, the GUI can function on a tablet computer, a wireless computing device, mobile phone, smart phone, personal computer, laptop computer, or any machine having a display and a microprocessor coupled with memory and operable for network-based communication with the at least one server.
As such, the user device, for implementing the abstract idea, may require no more than generic, conventional, and well-known computer devices such as a general purpose computer (as evidenced in Para. 66).
In Step 2B, the additional element(s) also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong 2. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. However, unless an Examiner had previously concluded under revised Step 2A that an additional element was insignificant extra-solution activity, they should reevaluate that conclusion in Step 2B (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim that integrates the judicial exception in to a practical application, nor do they amount to a claim that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2B, No).
Additionally, the system, providing access to a global positioning system and determining location information obtained from the GPS, as provided in claim limitations 5 and 6, have been found to require the use of conventional (even as of 2002) computer equipment, including GPS on a user device (See CAFC Decision Beteiro v. Draft Kings (06/21/2024) page 15).
Thus, components, including GPS, having features that are generic, conventional, and well-known represent extra-solution activity or a field-of-use.
Therefore, Claims 1, 10, and 19 are rejected as shown above. Additionally, Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 also recite limitations that are similar to the abstract ideas identified with respect to Claims 1, 10, and 19 above (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes). Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 do not recite any additional elements other than those recited in Claims 1, 10, and 19. Therefore, for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Prior Art
The Examiner notes that after a thorough search on the claims as currently presented, the claims currently overcome prior art. Additionally, Applicant’s arguments with regard to the 102 and 103 rejections are persuasive. The closest prior art found to date are the following:
Amaitis et al. (US 2013/0157735 A1) discloses the concept of state information of a live event such as a sports game may be received in real time, wherein during the event, a plurality of possible future states of the event and their associated probabilities (and odds) may be determined based on the state information, historical information, and current in-game information, and a betting market is created for betting on the possible future states at determined odds.
Williams et al. (US 2013/0225282 A1) discloses the concept of mobile gaming, location determination, mobile devices, and authentication.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see response, filed 07/01/2026, with respect to the prior art rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant states: “The Office Action alleges, on pages 10-11, that the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, specifically a mental process, because the claims recite limitations that "can be practically performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper" and "certain methods of organizing human activity." Applicant respectfully disagrees. Rather, the claimed invention is directed to systems and methods for generating and providing data for sports betting or wagering, and specifically directed to providing secure data from live sports events with applied analytics for use in sports betting or wagering during the live event, which cannot be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations outlined above, that exclude the additional elements, are limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind, and are considered certain methods of organizing human activity. The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer,” and that “courts have found requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The additional elements identified above are being used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The advance lies entirely in the realm of the abstract idea.
Furthermore, as recited above, the claims also recite limitations that are considered a fundamental economic principle or practice (e.g., relating to commerce and economy), commercial interactions, business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Such that, the claims, based on receiving data, generating odds based on said data, and receiving a bet during a live sporting event, fall under the abstract idea grouping relating to certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)). The claims, as outlined above, clearly relate to rules/steps for updating/maintaining/operating wagering during a live sporting event. Furthermore, Applicant’s statement that, “the claimed invention is directed to systems and methods for generating and providing data for sports betting or wagering, and specifically directed to providing secure data from live sports events with applied analytics for use in sports betting or wagering during the live event,” is clearly not consistent with what is actually claimed. For instance, the claims make no mention of “providing secure data,” “applied analytics,” and only requires received data from the event and generating odds based on said data.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant states: “Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract
idea but is rather inextricably tied to computer technology.
Using the first step of the Alice test, the court found that the claims at issue were not an abstract idea. The "claims do not recite a mathematical algorithm. Nor do they recite a fundamental economic or longstanding commercial practice. Although the claims address a business challenge it is a challenge particular to the Internet." DDR Holdings at 19.
Under the second step of the Alice test, the court ruled the claims at issue to be patent eligible because "they do not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet. Instead, the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks." DDR Holdings at 20 (emphasis added).”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. DDR is not analogous to the claims at hand. The currently presented claims do not address a challenge particular to the Internet. There is no claimed solution necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. The use of a “receiving data,” “the platform is operable to receive at least one bet during the live sporting event from at least one user device,” “GPS,” and/or “the platform is operable to impose a time delay for betting from the at least one user device based on location information of the at least one user device” are not being used to solve a problem arising in the realm of computer networks but are merely tying the claims to a specific technological environment or a field of use. Of course “sports betting or wagering” is a business practice known from the pre-Internet world and receiving data, generating odds based on said data, and creating location restrictions on wagering are steps/rules for wagering known from the pre-Internet world that could be done by hand and/or pen and paper.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant states: “The Federal Circuit's interpretation of Alice in DDR Holdings was affirmed by the USPTO in the document titled Examples: Abstract Ideas, which was published by the USPTO in conjunction with the 2014 Interim Guidance. Example 1 includes a computer-implemented method for protecting a computer from an electronic communication containing malicious code. The USPTO provides that "the invention claimed here is directed towards performing isolation and eradication of computer viruses, worms, and other malicious code, a concept inextricably tied to computer technology and distinct from the types of concepts found by the courts to be abstract." Examples: Abstract Ideas at 3.
Example 23 of the July 2015 Update also provides that a computer-implemented method for dynamically relocating textual information within an underlying window displayed in a graphical user interface is inextricably tied to computer technology. "The claim does not recite a basic concept that is similar to any abstract idea previously identified by the courts. For example, the claim does not recite any mathematical concept or a mental process such as comparing or categorizing information that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim does not set forth or describe an abstract idea. Instead, the claimed method is necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in graphical user interfaces. Additionally, the claim does not recite any other judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO). The claim is patent eligible." July 2015 Update at 9.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. “Examiners are reminded that examples issued by the Office in conjunction with the Interim Eligibility Guidance are intended to show exemplary analyses only and should not be used as a basis for a subject matter eligibility rejection or relied upon in the same manner as a decision from a court” (see p. 2 of May 2016 Memorandum: Formulating a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection and Evaluating the Applicant’s Response to a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection). Additionally, the facts of the Application here do not uniquely match the facts at issue in Examples 1 and 23.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant states: “Under the second step of the Alice test as implemented in DDR Holdings, the claims of the
present invention are patent eligible because they do not merely recite the performance of a system relating to a mental process and/or a method of organizing human activity known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet. Instead, the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. More specifically, the claimed invention is directed to overcoming the problem of providing secure data for wagering for live events, specifically managing, synchronizing, and presenting various forms of live event information with a reliable system for in-play wagers in live events. Moreover, the claimed invention is necessarily rooted in computer technology because it is directed to the use of a live event management system on a server platform.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, DDR is not analogous to the claims at hand. The currently presented claims do not address a challenge particular to the Internet. There is no claimed solution necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. The use of a “receiving data,” “the platform is operable to receive at least one bet during the live sporting event from at least one user device,” “GPS,” and/or “the platform is operable to impose a time delay for betting from the at least one user device based on location information of the at least one user device” are not being used to solve a problem arising in the realm of computer networks but are merely tying the claims to a specific technological environment or a field of use. As stated above, there is nothing in the claims showing “providing secure data,” merely receiving data, nor do the claims show “managing, synchronizing, and presenting various forms of live event information with a reliable system for in-play wagers in live events”. Instead, the claims as currently presented, receive data, generate odds, receive a bet, and enforce a rule pertaining to wagering. Using known technology to enforce a wagering restriction rule based on location is precisely reciting the performance of a system relating to a mental process and/or a method of organizing human activity known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet. Thus, the claims as currently presented do recite an abstract idea.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant states: “Similarly, Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed invention is directed to a
specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities. Specifically, the claimed invention is directed to providing secure data from live events with applied analytics for use in sports betting or wagering during the live event. The claimed invention does not recite a process or system that qualifies as an abstract idea for which computers are merely invoked as a tool. Instead, like the claimed invention at issue in Visual Memory, LLC, the claimed invention represents a specific, non-abstract improvement in computer capabilities. Hence, the present invention does not merely invoke a computer as a tool, because the present invention represents an improvement to live event monitoring technology, by providing a platform that enables generating odds based on data from a live sporting event, thus increasing the reliability and integrity of in-play wagering for bettors and bookmakers. Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed invention should therefore be found directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is no claimed improvement in computing capabilities. The currently presented claims do not address a challenge particular to the Internet. There is no claimed solution necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. The use of a “platform,” “user device,” and/or “GPS” are not being used to solve a problem arising in the realm of computer networks but are merely tying the claims to a specific technological environment or a field of use. As stated above, there is nothing in the claims showing “providing secure data,” merely receiving data, nor do the claims show “managing, synchronizing, and presenting various forms of live event information with a reliable system for in-play wagers in live events”. Instead, the claims as currently presented, receive data, generate odds, receive a bet, and enforce a rule pertaining to wagering. Using known technology to enforce a wagering restriction rule based on location is precisely reciting the performance of a system relating to a mental process and/or a method of organizing human activity known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet. Furthermore, “increasing the reliability and integrity of in-play wagering for bettors and bookmakers” is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field. Increased reliability of wagering for bettors and bookmakers is at least, as referenced above, an abstract idea for managing relationships between people. Thus, the claims as currently presented are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant states: “The claimed invention cannot be performed without the computing platform, including at
least one server or at least one processor coupled with a memory. A claim is directed to patentable subject matter if the claim includes a non-generic device which is able to perform operations by virtue of the specialized hardware of the non-generic device that a generic computer cannot perform. A generic computer cannot collect and aggregate various data in real time from at least one live sports event and securely communicate data over at least one network for use in wagering or betting on the at least one live sports event for in-play or event betting or cross-event betting during the corresponding at least one live sports event and impose a time delay as in the present invention. Moreover, a generic computer cannot collect generate odds based on data from a live sporting even, because this requires specialized hardware that a generic computer lacks. Thus, the computing platform of the present invention is required to provide for a live event management system, with the ability to provide secure data for wagering for live events. Therefore, the computing platform is essential to the operation of the claimed invention and plays a significant part in permitting the claimed invention to be performed. As such, although the claim allegedly includes abstract ideas, the claimed invention should be found directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Additionally, as stated by Examiner Leichliter in the non-final office action (issued
2/3/2022) of US Application No. 17/192,410, a parent application of the present application, "the steps of accessing a global positioning system (GPS) or a geofencing system, and wherein the server platform is operable to prevent or delay any betting from the at least one user device within a predetermined distance of the live sporting event based on location information of the at least one user device obtaining from the GPS or the geofencing system, which is not merely an abstract steps/rules for performing a sports bet that would be considered a method of organizing human activity," and thus were not rejected under 35 USC 101 (emphasis added). Applicant respectfully submits that the limitations of "wherein the platform is operable to access a global positioning system (GPS) or a geofencing system" and "wherein the platform is operable to impose a time delay for betting from the at least one user based on location information of the at least one user device based on location information of the at least one user device obtained from the GPS or the geofencing system" are limitations of claim 1, that are also not merely abstract steps/rules for performing a sports bet that would be considered a method of organizing human activity, and thus eligible under 35 USC 101.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, there is no claimed improvement in computing capabilities. The currently presented claims do not address a challenge particular to the Internet. There is no claimed solution necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. The use of a “platform,” “user device,” and/or “GPS” are not being used to solve a problem arising in the realm of computer networks but are merely tying the claims to a specific technological environment or a field of use. As stated above, there is nothing in the claims showing “securely communicate data” merely receiving data, nor do the claims show “managing, synchronizing, and presenting various forms of live event information with a reliable system for in-play wagers in live events”. Additionally, claims do not recite or enable “collect and aggregate various data in real time,” “cross-event betting,” and “collect generate odds”, nor do the claims recite a server. Furthermore, the independent claim 1 does not include any specialized hardware, nor does Applicant provide what the specialized hardware is, for receiving data and generating odds as alleged by the Applicant’s statement, “a generic computer cannot collect generate odds based on data from a live sporting even, because this requires specialized hardware that a generic computer lacks” and independent claims 10 and 19 do not even claim generating odds. Therefore, the actually recited additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additionally, in light of the Examiner’s prior statements, and as provided in the rejection above, an additional CAFC decision has been made, wherein the system, providing access to a global positioning system and determining location information obtained from the GPS, as provided in claim limitations 5 and 6 of claim 1, have been found to require the use of conventional (even as of 2002) computer equipment, including GPS on a user device (See CAFC Decision Beteiro v. Draft Kings (06/21/2024) page 15).
Thus, components, including GPS, having features that are generic, conventional, and well-known represent extra-solution activity or a field-of-use.
Therefore, the claims as currently presented are not indicative of integration into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
At least based on the above, the 101 rejection of claims 1-20 are herein maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHASE E LEICHLITER whose telephone number is (571)270-7109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (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, 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.
/CHASE E LEICHLITER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights