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 .
Procedural Summary
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 1 – 20 remain pending.
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.
This subject matter eligibility analysis follows the latest guidance for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claims 1 – 10 are drawn to a system.
Claims 11 – 20 are drawn to a method.
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?
Claims 1 – 10 are exemplary because they require substantially the same operative limitations of the remaining claims (reproduced below.) Examiner has underlined the claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, discussed in detail in the paragraphs that follow.
1. (Currently Amended) A system, comprising:
one or more processors coupled to non-transitory memory, the one or more processors configured to:
maintain a plurality of player profiles, each player profile of the plurality of player profiles comprising a data structure identifying a plurality of player attributes, wherein the plurality of player attributes are generated by i) extracting, from text data of communication sessions identifying the player profile, named entities using a named-entity recognition process and ii) classifying each named entity of the named entities as corresponding to at least one of an athlete, a team, or a type of sport;
maintain a plurality of wager opportunities corresponding to a plurality of live events;
extract, from a plurality of communication sessions identifying a first player profile of the plurality of player profiles, text data satisfying one or more extraction criteria;
identify, from the extracted text data, one or more named entities using the named-entity recognition process;
classify each named entity of the one or more named entities as corresponding to at least one of an athlete, a team, or a type of sport;
update the plurality of player attributes of the first player profile using the one or more named entities extracted from the text data and ii) the corresponding classifications of the one or more named entities;
receive, from a client device associated with the first player profile and prior to provision to a language model, a prompt comprising a request for a wager recommendation;
generate, for provision to the language model, an input context including the prompt, data identifying the plurality of player attributes of the first player profile, and data identifying at least a subset of the plurality of wager opportunities, wherein the input context excludes at least a portion of the text data of the plurality of communication sessions identifying the first player profile;
provide the input context to the language model;
generate, subsequent to providing the input context to using a the language model and the prompt, an output message identifying at least one wager opportunity of the plurality of wager opportunities selected based on the plurality of player attributes of the first player profile; and
provide the output message to the client device in response to the request.
The claims recite italicized limitations that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, namely, Certain methods of organizing human activity and Mental processes.
More specifically, under this grouping, the italicized limitations represent managing interactions between people. For example, the italicized limitations are directed towards the determination of player attributes and offering wagering opportunities to users in response to a user’s prompt and generating wagering recommendations in a natural language back to the user represented in a message. This represents a fundamental economic practice such as the determination and providing wagering opportunities to users. The latter also falls under the grouping of managing interactions between people, i.e., providing wagering opportunities to player based upon player attributes and request prompts. This also falls under Mental processes such as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
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 as follow, (emphasis added): processors, memory and client devices.
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)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not 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. Therefore, since the additional limitations, individually or in combination, are indistinguishable from a computer used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, the analysis continues to Step 2B, below.
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 and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, as pointed out above, the claimed invention recites additional elements facilitating implementation of the abstract idea. Applicant has claimed computer devices such as processors, memory and client devices. However, all of 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.
As the Alice court cautioned, citing Flook, patent eligibility cannot depend simply on the draftsman’s art. Here, amending the claims with generic computing elements does not (in this Examiner’s opinion), confer eligibility.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Applicant’s own specification establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0121] User input device 422 can include any device (or devices) via which a user can provide signals to client computing system 414; client computing system 414 can interpret the signals as indicative of particular user requests or information. In various implementations, user input device 422 can include any or all of a keyboard, touch pad, touch screen, mouse or other pointing device, scroll wheel, click wheel, dial, button, switch, keypad, microphone, and so on.
[0130] Processors suitable for the execution of a computer program include, by way of example, both general and special purpose microprocessors, and any one or more processors of any kind of digital computer. Generally, a processor can receive instructions and data from a read-only memory or a random access memory or both. The elements of a computer include a processor for performing actions in accordance with instructions and one or more memory devices for storing instructions and data. Generally, a computer can also include, or be operatively coupled to receive data from or transfer data to, or both, one or more mass storage devices for storing data, e.g., magnetic, magneto-optical disks, or optical disks. However, a computer need not have such devices. Moreover, a computer can be embedded in another device, e.g., a mobile telephone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a mobile audio or video player, a game console, a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver, or a portable storage device (e.g., a universal serial bus (USB) flash drive), for example. Devices suitable for storing computer program instructions and data include all forms of non-volatile memory, media, and memory devices, including by way of example semiconductor memory devices, e.g., EPROM, EEPROM, and flash memory devices; magnetic disks, e.g., internal hard disks or removable disks; magneto-optical disks; and CD-ROM and DVD-ROM disks. The processor and the memory can be supplemented by, or incorporated in, special purpose logic circuitry.
Therefore, 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).
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 merely provide conventional computer implementation.
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 merely 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 has said in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
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 § 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(s) 1, 3- 11 and 13 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inamdar et al (US 20240290169) in view of Todisco et al (US 12,307,861).
As per claim 1, Inamdar discloses:
one or more processors coupled to non-transitory memory, the one or more processors configured to: (Inamdar 0022)
maintain a plurality of player profiles, each player profile of the plurality of player profiles comprising a data structure identifying a plurality of player attributes, wherein the plurality of player attributes are generated by (Inamdar discloses the saving of user preferences to a player account or player tracking system comprising profiles (Inamdar 0030) wherein the profiles comprise user selected preferences such as filters, wherein the filters are user defined by the user (Inamdar 0025)
i) …identifying the player profile, named entities using a named-entity recognition process and ii) classifying each named entity of the named entities as corresponding to at least one of an athlete, a team, or a type of sport; (Inamdar discloses the identification of a user’s player selected filter wherein the selected filter is classified as a players favorite team based upon a user’s prior interactions such as wager history) (Inamdar 0034 – 0035)
maintain a plurality of wager opportunities corresponding to a plurality of live events; (Inamdar discloses the maintaining of a plurality of wager opportunities that correspond to live event) (Inamdar 0040)
extract, from a plurality of communication sessions identifying a first player profile of the plurality of player profiles, … data satisfying one or more extraction criteria; identify, from the extracted text data, one or more named entities using the named-entity recognition process; classify each named entity of the one or more named entities as corresponding to at least one of an athlete, a team, or a type of sport; update the plurality of player attributes of the first player profile using the i) one or more named entities extracted from the … data and ii) the corresponding classifications of the one or more named entities; (Inamdar discloses the monitoring of a player prior communication sessions such as prior communicated wager histories associated with their player tracking account, determining filters applied to the player profile and wherein the filters are filters classified as a players favorite team, or type of sport, wherein the player profile is updates with wager preferences as the player makes wagers (Inamdar 0032, 0034, 0035, 0038)
receive, from a client device associated with the first player profile and …a prompt comprising a request for a wager recommendation; (Inamdar discloses the player making a prompt or a request for a wager recommendation) (Inamdar 0025)
Inamdar fails to explicitly disclose:
extracting, from text data of communication sessions….
or
that the data that is extracted is specifically “text” data…
or
generate, for provision to the language model, an input context including the prompt, data identifying the plurality of player attributes of the first player profile, and data identifying at least a subset of the plurality of wager opportunities, wherein the input context excludes at least a portion of the text data of the plurality of communication sessions identifying the first player profile;
provide the input context to the language model;
generate, subsequent to providing the input context to the language model, an output message identifying at least one wager opportunity of the plurality of wager opportunities selected based on the plurality of player attributes of the first player profile; and
provide the output message to the client device in response to the request.
However in a similar field of endeavor wherein users search for wager opportunities and wager recommendations are given to the user Todisco teaches a system that utilizes LLM to determine and provide betting opportunities to a user based upon natural language queries (i.e. text data) (Todisco 3:55 – 67; 5:27 - 55). Todisco further teaches the inputting of users conversation context into the LLM (Todisco 6:29 – 34), a user’s historical attributes and extracted keywords(Todisco 6:53 – 61) to the LLM in order to determine and generate similar betting opportunities that are outputted to the user (Todisco 6:62-7:10, 43 – 60; 8:5 – 33)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Inamdar in view of Todisco to use a known technique to modify similar devices in the same way by utilizing a LLM to generate wagering recommendations base upon extracted text data from textual conversations, the context of the conversation and player attributes such as preferences for betting on favorite teams or players. This would be beneficial as it would provide tailored wagering opportunities to a user wherein they would not have to scroll through long lists searching for wagering opportunities (Todisco 1:15 – 30).
As per claim 3,
extract one or more keywords from the text data extracted from the plurality of communication sessions; and update the plurality of player attributes of the first player profile based on the one or more keywords. (Combination of Inamdar and Todisco, wherein Todisco utilizes keyword extraction (Todisco 9:10 – 25) and Inamdar further uses filters (textual filters , Fig 2B) based upon historical wager interactions to determine a user’s favorite team and this us used to update a player profile) (Inamdar fig 2B, 0035)
As per claim 4, determine a semantic score for the one or more keywords; and update the plurality of player attributes of the first player profile based on the semantic score determined for each the one or more keywords. (Combination of Inamdar and Todisco, wherein Inamdar further uses filters (textual filters , Fig 2B) based upon historical wager interactions to determine a user’s favorite team and this is used to update a player profile) (Inamdar fig 2B, 0035) and Todisco teaches the determine of a semantic score (i.e. vectors) to determine the meaning of a user prompt) (Todisco 8:17 – 33)
As per claim 5, extract the one or more keywords from the text data based on a named-entity recognition process. (Combination of Inamdar and Todisco, wherein Todisco recognizes a user wants to bet on the Jets based upon keywords) (Todisco 8:17 – 33)
As per claim 6, generate an input context for the language model using the plurality of player attributes, the prompt, and the at least one wager opportunity. (Todisco determines an input context based upon the user attributes of the conversation, the prompt and what they want to wager upon ) (Todisco 6:16 – 34)
As per claim 7, select the at least one wager opportunity based on a similarity between data of the at least one wager opportunity and the plurality of player attributes. (Todisco determined a potential bet that matches a user’s context (attributes of prior user prompts) and prompt query regarding a requested wager) (Todisco 8:17 – 51).
As per claim 8, wherein the plurality of player attributes comprise an indication of a wager type of a plurality of wager types. (Inamdar 0035)
As per claim 9, wherein the plurality of player attributes comprise an indication of one or more participants or one or more teams corresponding to one or more live events. (Inamdar 0035)
As per claim 10, wherein the plurality of player attributes comprise an indication of one or more types of live events. (Inamdar 0034)
Independent claim(s) 11 is/are made obvious by the combination of Inamdar, Todisco and Cuomo based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 1, which are similar in claim scope.
Dependent claim(s) 13 - 20 is/are made obvious by the combination of Inamdar, Todisco and Cuomo based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 3-10, which are similar in claim scope.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inamdar et al (US 20240290169) in view of Todisco et al (US 12,307,861) in view of Cuomo et al (US 2025/0299053).
As per claim 2, The combination of Inamdar and Todisco fails to disclose:
“preprocess the text data to remove one or more words, phrases, or symbols.”
However in a similar field of endeavor wherein a LLM is used to process NL queries based upon users prior chat interactions, Cuomo teaches the use of a system wherein user prompts are pre-processed and enriched prior to the provisioning to the LLM, wherein prompts can be tailored to a particular LLM and text data can be removed or added to the prompt (Cuomo 0037., 0051, 0052, 0055, 0057, 0058, 0087, 0089).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Inamdar in view of Todisco in view of Cuomo to use a known technique to modify similar devices in the same way by means of pre-processing textual prompts to remove words or phrases. This would be beneficial as some LLM are more effective processing and acting upon prompts that are of a certain format or comprise specific keywords (Cuomo 0055).
Dependent claim(s) 12 is/are made obvious by the combination of Inamdar, Todisco and Cuomo based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 2, which are similar in claim scope.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 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. Please see new rejection of amended claims in view of Inamdar, Todisco and Cuomo.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Applicant states: “These recited limitations define a particular manner of preparing the data provided to the language model, and the claim further requires that the processors "provide the input context to the language model" before they "generate ... an output message...." Accordingly, the claim is directed to the specific claimed processing of communication-session text and generation of the claimed input context for the language model, as recited, and not to the abstract characterization identified in the Office Action.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claim limitations do indeed encompass an abstract idea as identified by the above rejection. The mere preparation of data and providing it to a generic and conventional language model does not save the claims in this instance. With the exception of the claims limitations directed towards processors, memory and client devices, the recited abstract idea can be performed by a human utilizing manual means such as pen and paper. The Applicant has not provided any persuasive evidence other than alleging that the claims define a particular manner of preparing data, that shows an improvement to the operation or functioning of the computer itself, such as the underlying computing architecture or to another technology or technical field. The Examiner maintains the rejection.
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 ROSS A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5911. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 4pm.
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.
/RAW/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
5/23/2026
/KANG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights