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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/24/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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. The claims recite a method of sorting wagers and determining financial obligations. Wagering is a fundamental economic principle of long standing. It is also, by definition, a method of determining financial obligations. Furthermore, the placement of a wager is the formation of a contract. For these reasons, the claims are drawn to a method of organizing human activity. In addition, the claims can be performed by a human without aid of a computer. Thus, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
(a) It does not improve the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field;
(b) Applying the judicial exception does not effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
(c) Do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine;
(d) It does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing;
(e) It does not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the exception to a particular technological environment such that the claims as a whole are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed processors, compute devices, and displays are generic computers or parts thereof. This is shown by Applicant’s specification:
[0023] The user compute device 130 is a device configured to receive requests from a user U1 and present responses to such requests to the user U1. In some instances, the user U1 can include a plurality of users. The user compute device 130 can include a processor 132,memory 134,display 136, and peripheral(s) 138, each operatively coupled to one another (e.g., via a system bus). In some implementations, the user compute device 130 is associated with (e.g., owned by, accessible by, operated by, etc.) a user U1. The user U1 can be any type of user, such as, for example, a gambler, a player, an administrator, a manager, and the like. [0024] The processor 132 of the user compute device 130 can be, for example, a hardware based integrated circuit (IC), or any other suitable processing device configured to run and/or execute a set of instructions or code. For example, the processor 132 can be a general-purpose processor, a central processing unit (CPU), an accelerated processing unit (APU), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field programmable gate array (FPGA), a programmable logic array (PLA), a complex programmable logic device (CPLD), a programmable logic controller (PLC) and/or the like. The processor 132 can be operatively coupled to the memory 134 through a system bus (for example, address bus, data bus and/or control bus). [0025] The memory 134 of the user compute device 130 can be, for example, a random-access memory (RAM), a memory buffer, a hard drive, a read-only memory (ROM), an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM), and/or the like. In some instances, the memory 134 can store, for example, one or more software programs and/or code that can include instructions to cause the processor 132 to perform one or more processes, functions, and/or the like. In some implementations, the memory 134 can include extendable storage units that can be added and used incrementally. In some implementations, the memory 134 can be a portable memory (e.g., a flash drive, a portable hard disk, and/or the like) that can be operatively coupled to the processor 132. In some instances, the memory 134 can be remotely operatively coupled with a compute device (not shown). For example, a remote database device can serve as a memory and be operatively coupled to the compute device.
As can readily be seen, the claimed invention can be performed by a human without the aid of a computer:
A human can receive (1) first wager data from a first gambler and (2) second
wager data from a plurality of second gamblers that excludes the first gambler,
The first wager data being associated with a first wager, and the second wager data being associated with a plurality of second wagers, each second wager from the plurality of second wagers being associated with a second gambler different from remaining second gamblers from the plurality of second gamblers; (This merely describes the data. Data is, by definition, abstract, and describing the data does not change that fact)
A human can provide (1) the second wager data and (2) a threshold wager
amount as inputs to a bin packing model to cause identification of a subset of second wagers from the plurality of second wagers, the subset of second wagers being associated with a subset of second wager data from the second wager data (i.e. a human can sort wagers based on wager amounts and group wagers with amounts that are within a threshold range together);
c. In response to the identification of the subset of second wagers, a human can set rule(s) specifying that at least one result of the subset of second wagers is based on a result of the first wager; (Humans can make rules and follow them)
d. A human can cause the first wager data and the subset of second wager data to be stored at a centralized database (i.e. the human can write down the wagers in a ledger);
e. A human can execute a game to produce an outcome of the game (For instance, a human can flip a coin to produce a game outcome);
f. A human can determine the result of the first wager based on the outcome of the game and the first wager data that is stored at the centralized database (After flipping the coin, the human can consult the ledger to see whether the first gambler bet on heads or tails and determine the result of the first wager based on that data);
g. A human can determine the at least one result of the subset of second wagers based on the result of the first wager and the subset of second wager data that is stored at the centralized database (A human can look at the data recorded in the ledger to see which, if any, of the second group of gamblers bet the first gambler would win); and
h. A human can cause at least one signal (i.e. by writing a note) to be sent to cause (1) settlement of the first wager based on the result of the first wager and (2) settlement of the subset of second wagers based on the at least one result of the subset of second wagers.
The dependent claims merely add steps to the method that can be performed by a human. Furthermore, they are steps in the gambling process. They do not provide a “technical solution to a technical problem.” Applicant states (in [0003] of the specification) that the purpose of the invention is to facilitate group wagering. The need for group wagering is not a “technical problem” because it does not arise from technology. Thus, the claimed abstract idea is not and cannot be “integrated into a practical application.”
Currently, implementation of an abstract idea on generic computers is not patent-eligible without “significantly more.” Neither the abstract idea itself nor parts of the abstract idea can supply “significantly more” than the abstract idea. As written, current claims are drawn to an abstract idea with essentially the words “implement it” on a generic computer appended thereto. As such, the claims are not patent-eligible.
A thorough analysis or each and every limitation of each and every claim, both individually and as a part of an ordered combination shows that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 6-11 & 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Higgins et al. (US Patent Pub. 20200184777; referred to hereinafter as Higgins).
Claims 1 & 11: Higgins disclose a non-transitory, processor-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor (0032-0033), cause the processor to, receive, via at least one first network socket (0033 player network), first wager data from a first compute device (0033-0035 EGM) and second wager data from a second compute device different from the first compute device (0042, back betting on back-betting system, different from EGM), the first wager data representing a first wager, and the second wager data representing a second wager having a result that is defined based on a result of the first wager (0045-0046 & 0064-0066), cause the first wager data and the second wager data to be stored, via a second network socket that is different from the at least one first network socket at a database (0058 back-betting system, different from EGM), execute a game to produce an outcome of the game (0080), determine the result of the first wager based on the outcome of the game and the first wager data that is stored at the database, determine the result of the second wager based on the result of the first wager and the second wager data that is stored at the database (0080) and automatically cause at least one signal to be sent, via the at least one first network socket, to cause (1) a settlement of the first wager based on the result of the first wager and (2) a settlement of the second wager based on the result of the second wager (0087-0091).
Claims 6, 10, 16 & 20: Higgins disclose wherein the game includes a slots game or Casino game (0031).
Claims 7 & 17: Higgins disclose wherein the at least one first network socket is associated with a first permission level that excludes access to the database (0033-0042 provides permission for EGM and not back-betting network), and the second network socket is associated with a second permission level that is different than the first permission level and that includes access to the database (0058 back-betting system).
Claims 8 & 18: Higgins disclose receive, via a first graphical user interface (GUI) that is executed at the first compute device, a request for a first user to participate in the game (0086 EGM), and in response to receiving the request, automatically cause display, via a second GUI executed at the second compute device, of a user-selectable element to permit a second user to generate the second wager data (0069-0070 & 0096).
Claims 9 & 19: Higgins disclose cause display, at the first compute device and the second compute device, of video data that depicts social media content associated with at least one of (1) a first user who placed the first wager or (2) a second user who placed the second wager (0127-0129).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 & 12-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Malek (20190304249) refers to able to bet on and be part of the deal and excitement for a third party, as his agent, proxy, or shadow, to bet for him, or instead of him, or as if the first person was doing the game directly, or one betting for another, or one playing for another with the other person's money. That generates more excitement on the game or casino, with more participation, transactions, income, profit, loyalty, and repeat customers. This brings a lot of variations on the game, e.g., stock market model, or derivatives model, or hedge model. This can be applied to sports and table games or fantasy sports. This can be applied to online, real, mobile, fantasy, simulation, computer generated, human based, or casino games or settings.
Higgins (11,080,967) refers to gaming systems and, in particular, to back-betting within a gaming system. As an example, a back-betting system is disclosed to include a first communication interface that facilitates machine-to-machine communications with an Electronic Gaming Machine (EGM) of a gaming system, where the first communication interface is used to exchange state-of-play information with the EGM. The system is also disclosed to include a second communication interface that facilitates machine-to-machine communications with a mobile device, where the second communication interface is used to exchange back-bet wager information and deliver an indication of an outcome of a back-bet placed during a back-betting session established with the mobile device. The system may still further include a processor and a computer-readable storage medium with processor-executable instructions that limit a duration of the back-betting session based on an association existing between the EGM and the mobile device.
The referenced citations made in the rejection(s) above are intended to exemplify areas in the prior art document(s) in which the examiner believed are the most relevant to the claimed subject matter. However, it is incumbent upon the applicant to analyze the prior art document(s) in its/their entirety since other areas of the document(s) may be relied upon at a later time to substantiate examiner's rationale of record. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). However, "the prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed ...." In re Fulton, 391F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNIT PANDYA whose telephone number is (571)272-2823. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:30PM.
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.
/SUNIT PANDYA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715