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 Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 07/29/2026. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below.
New rejections are made under 35 USC 112(b) in view of amendments, see detailed analysis below.
Claims 1-3, 6-13, and 16-20 are now pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “.. a prompt comprising a request for a wager recommendation, the request identifying a requested attribute of a participant of the plurality of participants or a team of the plurality of teams; … and further recites “select a subset of the plurality of wager opportunities that identify i) one or more participants of the plurality of participants that satisfy the attribute request or ii) a team of the plurality of teams that satisfy the attribute request.” The attribute request lacks antecedent basis as no attribute request has been previously recited. Claim 11 contains similar language and is rejected on the same ground. Dependent Claims 2, 3, 6-10, 12-13, and 16-20 inherit this discrepancy by nature of their dependencies. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 recites “a similarity between the candidate wager opportunity and the at least one requested attribute.” “The at least one requested attribute” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 17 depends from Claim 16, which depends from Claim 11, a method claim. Claim 17 recites “The method of claim 16, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receiving, by the one or more processors, from the client device, a second prompt identifying a second requested attribute; and generating, by the one or more processors …” It is unclear whether claim 17 requires that the recited receiving and generating steps be performed as part of the claimed method, or whether it merely requires that the processors be capable of performing them. A claim recited both a method and an apparatus configuration renders the claim indefinite because a person practicing the method cannot determine whether infringement occurs when the processors are so configured or when the steps are actually carried out. (Note: a suggested correction of claim 17 should read “The method of claim 16, further comprising:…”).
Claims 9 and 19 recites “a client device”. Claim 1 has already recited “a client device”. It is unclear whether Claims 9/19 requires the same client device recited in claim 1 or permits a different client device.
Claims 9 and 19 recites “a historical attribute of the plurality of historical participants that relates to one or more of the plurality of participants”. Claim 8, from which claim 9 depends recites “one or more historical participant attributes of one or more historical participants”. A “plurality of historical participants” has not been previously recited, and it is unclear whether claim 9 requires two or more historical participants where claim 8 requires only one or more.
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 1-3, 6-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Each of Claims 1-3, 6-13, and 16-20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
The examiner follows the two step-analysis, as described in MPEP 2106 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html). The following diagram is an overview of the steps involved.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1
Step 1 of the two step-analysis considers whether the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention such as a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The instant invention claims a system and a method in claims 1-3, 6-13, and 16-20. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad statutory categories of invention. However, claims that fall within one of the four statutory categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas.
Step 2A
Step 2A has been further divided into two prongs as shown in the following diagram.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Step 2A, Prong 1
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon. The term “abstract idea” is not interpreted as a layperson might. Instead, the term “abstract idea” is interpreted as described in legal opinions by courts.
According to MPEP 2106.04(a):
the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – 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); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
According to the specification, the invention provides techniques for improving wager placement processes by utilizing language models in combination with stored data to generate wagering recommendations. Spec. ¶¶ 3-7. Representative Claim 11 (and similarly recited Independent Claim 1) recites the following:
11. (Previously Presented) A method, comprising:
maintaining, by one or more processors (additional element) coupled to non-transitory memory (additional element), a plurality of wager opportunities corresponding to a plurality of live events, each of the plurality of wager opportunities identifying at least one of a plurality of teams or a plurality of participants of one or more live events;
maintaining, by the one or more processors (additional element), a dataset identifying one or more participant attributes of the plurality of participants and one or more team attributes of the plurality of teams;
receiving, by the one or more processors (additional element), from a client device (additional element), a prompt comprising a request for a wager recommendation, the request identifying a requested attribute of a participant of the plurality of participants or a team of the plurality of teams;
selecting, by the one or more processors, a subset of the plurality of wager opportunities that identify i) one or more participants of the plurality of participants that satisfy the attribute request or ii) a team of the plurality of teams that satisfy the attribute request;
generating, by the one or more processors, for a language model, an input context that includes i) the request for the wager recommendation and ii) data of the selected subset of wager opportunities;
generating, by the one or more processors, by providing the input context as input to the language model, a model output identifying, from the subset of the plurality of wager opportunities, at least one wager opportunity selected by the language model based on the requested attribute;
generating, by the one or more processors, an output message based on the model output, the output message identifying the at least one wager opportunity; and
providing, by the one or more processors, the output message to the client device in response to the request.”
Taken together, these limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of a fundamental economic practice and a commercial interaction – namely, recommending a wager to a participant based on a criterion for the participant specifics, so that the participant may place that wager. Wagering is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in commerce, and the exchange between a player and a wagering service is a commercial interaction in the nature of a sales activity or business relation. Independently, the limitation “…selecting, …, a subset of the plurality of wager opportunities that identify i) one or more participants of the plurality of participants that satisfy the attribute request…” also recites a mental process. A person provided with a printed list of the day’s offered wagers and a table of player and team statistics could, using observation, evaluation, and judgment, identify which offered wagers involve a player or team meeting a stated criteria. That such a step is recited as performed by one or more processors does not remove it from the mental-processes grouping, because a claim that recites a mental process performed on a generic computer still recites a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the additional elements in the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Here, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. According to 2019 PEG, a consideration indicative of integration into a practical application includes improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular application (a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components for filtering Internet content, as discussed in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Conversely, considerations not indicative of integration include adding words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)); adding insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claims 1 and 11 further recite one or more processors coupled to non-transitory memory, a language model, and a client device, claimed so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than in name only) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and perform no function beyond executing the recited steps. They amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, which cannot integrate an exception into a practical application. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Additionally, the maintaining, receiving, generating, and providing steps are deemed to be data gathering and data presentation for the use of the judicial exception and similarly are recited at a high level of generality. Thus, these limitations are a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g), See also selecting a particular source and type of data to be manipulated where “Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Even when the limitations are viewed in combination, the additional elements in this claim do no more than automate the organizing activities needed to be performed, using the one of more computer components as tools. While this type of automation is an improvement in a general sense as opposed to performance manually, there is no change to the computers and other technology that are recited in the claim as automating the abstract ideas, and thus this claim cannot improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Latric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality). Furthermore, the additional elements do not serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Accordingly, Claims 1, 11, and their dependents as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and these claims are directed to the judicial exception. Thus, Claims 1, and 11 lack the eligibility requirements of Step 2 Prong II.
Step 2B
Finally, under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements:
add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present (MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present (MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo, April 20, 2018). Thus, the additional elements evaluated under Step 2A are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Claims 1, and 11 do not recite additional elements, individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the lack of a practical application, the additional elements in the claim (i.e. one or more processors coupled to a non-transitory memory, a language model, and a client device etc.) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components used as tools. These additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable a game to be conducted by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and storing data, (ii) automating mental tasks and (iii) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Here, the maintaining, receiving, , determining, generating, and providing steps of the claims are deemed to be data gathering and data presentation extra-solution activity. Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that these limitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) and then to present or display said information is well known as in presenting offers and gathering statistics (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii). Accordingly, a conclusion that the step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Additionally, the specification describes the relevant computer systems in generic, functional, and conventional terms. For example, the specification simply refers to one or more processors in generic and functional terms, without any specificity as to the type or capabilities of such processor(s). See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 104 and Fig. 4. Moreover, the specification admits that the “client device 120 can be a personal computer, a laptop computer, a television device, a smart phone device, a mobile device, or another type of computing device.” Spec. ¶ 33. Such features are considered well-understood, routine, and conventional because they merely require generic and conventional computer components described at a high level of generality.
Additionally, while the specification discusses the use of large language models (LLMs), it does not provide any indication that the LLMs themselves are improved in any way. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 21-26 and 40-42. Instead, the LLMs appear to be pre-existing, off-the-shelf computer components arranged in conventional ways. Nothing in the claims provides detail about specific or improved LLMs, but rather they apply particular wager information to existing LLMs to process that wager information.
Thus, taking the claimed elements individually yields no difference from taking them in combination because each element simply performs its respective function as discussed above. The claims do not purport to improve the functioning of a computer itself, nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the additional features merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic, functional, and conventional components well-known in the art. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims further narrows the data on which the abstract idea operates an recites no additional element beyond those addressed above.
Therefore, claims 1-3, 6-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
AIA Notice
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.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 12,307,861 to Todisco et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0027077 A1 to Cockerill et al. (hereinafter Cockerill).
Regarding Claim 1, and similarly recited Claim 11, (Previously Presented) Todisco discloses a system, comprising:
one or more processors coupled to non-transitory memory (Fig. 1. RAM 102 and/or local storage 122), the one or more processors (fig. 1, CPU 106, Col. 4:9-40 discloses computer 102 including central processing unit 106) configured to:
maintain a plurality of wager opportunities corresponding to a plurality of live events, each of the plurality of wager opportunities identifying at least one of a plurality of teams or a plurality of participants of one or more live events (figs. 2-3, e.g., live data 210 in Fig. 2 and/or vector database 312 in Col. 7:43-60), each of the plurality of wager opportunities identifying at least one of a plurality of teams or a plurality of participants of one or more live events (e.g., user query about a sports team such as the Bills in Col. 6:15-45; the bet engine utilizes live data and user historical context, Col.6:16-34);
receive, from a client device, a prompt comprising a request for a wager recommendation, the request identifying a requested attribute of a participant of the plurality of participants or a team of the plurality of teams (see Fig. 3, a user 302 inputs a natural language query for a bet via interface 304, Col.7, lines 32-42; Fig. 2, user 202 my input a query through interface 204; user 202 may input a query in natural language. For example, the user may ask “Give me a trending bet for $20.”, Col. 5:28-40);
select a subset of the plurality of wager opportunities …. (Col. 6:35-67 discloses upon translating a query from user 202 to computer-readable format, bet engine 208 may determine a bet to present back to user 202 through interface 204. In some embodiments, bet engine 208 may compare a query with bet data housed in bet data store 212 in order to determine a bet to present to user 202. In some embodiments, bet data store 212 may contain pre-existing bets and markets, such as bets in which pricing and risk are already determined. In other embodiments, bet data store 212 can determine bets (and more complex propositions such as parlays) and the associated odds in real time, responsive to the user's query. In some embodiments, bet engine 208 may determine that a particular bet is a match for a query based on whether the bet exceeds or falls below a given threshold. For example, bet engine 208 may determine that a bet matches a query if the bet and the query are at least 75% similar. As such, it may be possible for a plurality of bets to match a given query; a plurality of bets may be identified as matching the query from user 202. As such, in some embodiments, bet engine 208 may present the most closely matching bet to the query to user 202. In some embodiments, bet engine 208 may present a plurality of bets to user 202 such that user 202 may select one or more bets to place) (the matched set of bets is the recited subset);
generate, for a language model, an input context that includes i) the request for the wager recommendation and ii) data of the selected subset of wager opportunities (Fig. 3 depicts bet engine 308 transmitting QUERY+CONTEXT to language processing engine 306; Col. 7:57-60 discloses upon determining an existing bet matching the query, bet engine 308 may transmit the query, bet, and historical conversation context to language processing engine 306; Col. 8:8-11 discloses language processing engine 306 may include a large language model that utilizes neural networks in order to decipher the meaning behind human-understandable language);
generate, by providing the input context as input to the language model, a model output identifying, from the subset of the plurality of wager opportunities, at least one wager opportunity selected by the language model based on the requested attribute (Col. 7:64 – Col. 8:32 discloses user 302 may input a query into interface 304, and language processing engine 306 may generate a response to the query, including the bet, and present the response back to user 302 in human-readable format through interface 304 … language processing engine 306 may use machine learning to generate a response to user 302 in light of the query and previous conversation context. Bet engine 308 may then interface with vector database 312 to match the generated embedding with a stored embedding representing an existing bet. For example, bet engine 308 may determine that an embedding representing a 3-leg parlay for the Sunday Jets' game is the best match to the query. Upon determining a matching embedding, bet engine 308 may serve the corresponding bet to language processing engine 306, where language processing engine 306 may present the bet back to user 302 in a conversational manner, such as by saying, “you may like this 3-leg parlay for the Sunday night Jets' game.”);
generate an output message based on the model output, the output message identifying the at least one wager opportunity (fig. 3 depicts RESPONSE transmitted from language processing engine 304 and then to user 302; Col. 10:38-45 discloses in step 514, the bet is presented to the user. In some embodiments, the bet may be presented to the user through an interface, such as that from which the user queried the system. Upon presenting the bet to the user, the user may then further query the system to obtain a new bet, modify the bet, refine the bet search, and other similar actions. Further, upon being presented with one or more bets, the user may then select whether or not to place a bet); and
provide the output message to the client device in response to the request (figs. 1, 3 depicts RESPONSE transmitted from language processing engine 304 and then to user 302; Col. 10:38-45 discloses in step 514, the bet is presented to the user. In some embodiments, the bet may be presented to the user through an interface, such as that from which the user queried the system. Upon presenting the bet to the user, the user may then further query the system to obtain a new bet, modify the bet, refine the bet search, and other similar actions. Further, upon being presented with one or more bets, the user may then select whether or not to place a bet).
Todisco maintains a bet data store and a training data store containing sports betting data but it does not explicitly disclose:
maintain a dataset identifying one or more participant attributes of the plurality of participants and one or more team attributes of the plurality of teams; and
select a subset …. that identify i) one or more participants of the plurality of participants that satisfy the attribute request or ii) a team of the plurality of teams that satisfy the attribute request.
Cockerill discloses maintain a dataset identifying one or more participant attributes of the plurality of participants and one or more team attributes of the plurality of teams (¶¶ [0031] discloses data store 118 which stores statistics for individual participants for the participant’s team and for the opposing team. Using a specific example, the user may provide a proposed bet selection that Mohamed Salah on Liverpool F.C. will score over 3 goals in today's game against Arsenal F.C. Responsive to receiving this proposed bet selection, bet selection handler 122 may generate insights related to the proposed bet selection. For example, bet selection handler 122 may query data store 118 for statistics related to Mohamed Salah, Liverpool, and Arsenal. More specifically, bet selection handler 122 may query data store 118 for statistics related to how often Salah has scored 2 or more goals, how often Salah has scored 3 or more goals, how many times Salah had a multigoal game, how many times Liverpool has scored 3 or more goals in a game, how many times Arsenal has given up 3 or more goals in a game, how many times Arsenal has given up 3 or more goals to a single player in the game, and the like. See ¶¶ [0030], [0033] discloses bet selection handler 122 may be configured to generate recommendations for the bettor or user based on historical event information pulled from data store 118, as well as real-time or near real-time data captured by tracking system 102); and
select a subset …. that identify i) one or more participants of the plurality of participants that satisfy the attribute request or ii) a team of the plurality of teams that satisfy the attribute request (¶¶ [0031], [0070]-[0072], fig. 4, steps 404-406 discloses generating a plurality of queries by analyzing the request and retrieving data responsive to those queries, i.e., retrieving the records whose attributes satisfy the request. Fig. 5, GUI 500 STAT BUILDER in which the user selects a participant; ¶¶ [0076]-[0080] discloses the system returns the selections and supporting data satisfying those attribute criteria).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Todisco’s bet search system with Cockerill’s participant/team dataset as both references are in the same field of endeavor and both operate on the same data types. Substituting or supplementing Todisco’s similarity retrieval with Cockerill’s attribute-based retrieval over a statistics store is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, and would have yielded no more than predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, and similarly recited Claim 12, (Original) Todisco in view of Cockerill discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more team attributes comprise one or more of a ranking of each of the plurality of teams, a performance of a corresponding team of the plurality of teams in one or more live events, or a type of sport in which each of the plurality of teams participate (Cockerill, ¶¶ [0031], [0055] discloses statistics of teams, ¶¶ [0041], [0055] discloses ranking of teams, ¶¶ [0029] discloses types of sports teams may participate).
Regarding Claim 3, and similarly recited Claim 13, (Original) Todisco in view of Cockerill discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more participant attributes comprise one or more of a ranking of each of the plurality of participants or subsets thereof, one or more performance metrics of each of the plurality of participants in one or more live events, or one or more associations with the plurality of teams (Cockerill, figs. 5A-5B, ¶¶ [0031], [0073], [0077], [0080] discloses performance metrics and associations of players on teams; ¶¶ [0042] discloses a table with depicts top scorers on both teams).
Regarding Claim 6, and similarly recited Claim 16, (Original) Todisco in view of Cockerill discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
generate the output message to include a plurality of candidate wager opportunities selected from the plurality of wager opportunities, each candidate wager opportunity selected based on a similarity between the candidate wager opportunity and the at least one requested attribute (Col. 6:35-67 discloses upon translating a query from user 202 to computer-readable format, bet engine 208 may determine a bet to present back to user 202 through interface 204. In some embodiments, bet engine 208 may compare a query with bet data housed in bet data store 212 in order to determine a bet to present to user 202. In some embodiments, bet data store 212 may contain pre-existing bets and markets, such as bets in which pricing and risk are already determined. In other embodiments, bet data store 212 can determine bets (and more complex propositions such as parlays) and the associated odds in real time, responsive to the user's query. In some embodiments, bet engine 208 may determine that a particular bet is a match for a query based on whether the bet exceeds or falls below a given threshold. For example, bet engine 208 may determine that a bet matches a query if the bet and the query are at least 75% similar. As such, it may be possible for a plurality of bets to match a given query; a plurality of bets may be identified as matching the query from user 202. As such, in some embodiments, bet engine 208 may present the most closely matching bet to the query to user 202. In some embodiments, bet engine 208 may present a plurality of bets to user 202 such that user 202 may select one or more bets to place) (the matched set of bets is the recited subset).
Regarding Claim 7, and similarly recited Claim 17, (Original) Todisco in view of Cockerill discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
receive, from the client device, a second prompt identifying a second requested attribute (Todisco, Col. 2:10-17 discloses : receiving a second query from the user; translating the second query to a second query embedding; matching the second query embedding to a second bet embedding associated with a second bet, wherein the second bet is different from the first bet; and presenting the second bet to the user); and
generate, using the language model and the second prompt, a second output message comprising a first wager opportunity of the plurality of candidate wager opportunities, the first wager opportunity selected based on the second requested attribute (Todisco, Col. 1:65 – Col. 2:17, Col 7:20-42 discloses tailoring engine 216 may be utilized to filter and/or refine the bets presented to user 202 by bet engine 208. For example, upon being presented with one or more bets, user 202 may desire to see a different bet(s). As such, user 202 may request the bets be shuffled. Accordingly, tailoring engine 216 may shuffle the bets such that new bets are presented to user 202. For another example, a user may desire to modify a bet presented to them in any number of ways, such as by deleting a leg of a parlay, changing the player being bet on, changing the team being bet on, and changing the bet amount. Accordingly, tailoring engine 216 may modify a bet based on a query by a user).
Regarding Claim 8 and similarly recited Claim 18, (Original) Todisco in view of Cockerill discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the dataset further comprises one or more historical participant attributes of one or more historical participants or one or more historical team attributes of one or more historical teams (Cockerill, ¶¶ [0030]-[0032], [0073] discloses generating recommendations based on historical event information pulled from data store 118 and generating insights from historical participant data).
Regarding Claim 9 and similarly recited Claim 19, (Original) Todisco in view of Cockerill discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
receive, from a client device, a second prompt comprising a second request for a wager recommendation (Todisco, Col. 2:10-17 discloses receiving a second query from the user; translating the second query to a second query embedding; matching the second query embedding to a second bet embedding associated with a second bet, wherein the second bet is different from the first bet; and presenting the second bet to the user), the second request identifying a historical attribute of the plurality of historical participants that relates to one or more of the plurality of participants (Cockerill, ¶¶ [0034], [0041], [0052], [0055], [0063]); and
generate, using the language model, the second prompt (Todisco, Col. 2:10-17 discloses : receiving a second query from the user; translating the second query to a second query embedding; matching the second query embedding to a second bet embedding associated with a second bet, wherein the second bet is different from the first bet; and presenting the second bet to the user), and data of the plurality of wager opportunities, an output message identifying at least one second wager opportunity of the plurality of wager opportunities selected based on the historical attribute (Cockerill, ¶¶ [0034], [0041], [0052], [0055], [0063]) .
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 12,307,861 to Todisco et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0027077 A1 to Cockerill et al. (hereinafter Cockerill) and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0148364 A1 to HUKE et al. (hereinafter Huke).
Regarding Claim 10, and similarly recited Claim 20, (Original) Todisco in view of Cockerill discloses the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the client device is associated with a player profile, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
generate the output message further based on the player profile.
Huke discloses wherein the client device is associated with a player profile (¶¶ [0067] discloses a user database 114 which contains data relevant to all users of the system, which may include, a user ID, a device identifier, a paired device identifier, wagering history, and wallet information for each user), and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
generate the output message further based on the player profile (¶¶ [0069]-[0070], [0078] discloses the user database is accessed by the wagering network in presenting wagers to the user through wagering app 136 on mobile device 134 and in adjusting the user’s account balance; ¶¶ [0048] also discloses customized betting allows customers to have tailored personalized betting experiences with sophisticated tracking and analysis of player’s behavior).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Huke’s stored player profile with Todisco’s client device/system as doing so would predictably improve the relevance of the bet presented, which is Todisco’s objective (see Todisco Col. 1).
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/29/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant states on pages 7 and 15 of the response that during the July 17, 2026 interview the Examiner indicated a final Office Action may need to be reissued due to an improper mapping of the references of the claims. The finality of the prior Office Action is hereby withdrawn, and this Action is issued as a non-final Office Action. The rejection under 35 USC 103 over Todisco in view of Qin is withdrawn in its entirety and Qin is no longer relied upon. A corrected rejection under 35 USC 103 is presented.
Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection under 35 USC 101 on pages 7-14.
On pages 9-10, “Applicant argues that the identified limitations cannot practically be performed in the human mind because they involve the dynamic generation and construction of a targeted input context from stored datasets for input into a language model.” This argument is unpersuasive for two reasons. First, the argument conflates the judicial exception with additional elements. The language model, the input context generated for it, the processors and the client device are additional elements. Their presence in the claim is the reason the claim is not performed entirely in the mind but that is the analysis reserved for Prong Two Step 2B. Second, the argument is not responsive to the grouping now relied upon. The primary grouping identified above is certain methods of organizing human activity – a fundamental economic practice and commercial interaction. Whether a limitation can practically be performed in the human mind is the test for the mental processes grouping.
On pages 10-13, Applicant argues that the claims reflect a technical improvement in dynamically constructing a targeted language-model input context from stored wager data, citing ¶¶ 20-23 and that “by constructing an input context from the selected subset, the claims reflect the technical improvement of reducing the processing resources needed to process the input context.” This argument is not persuasive. The Examiner does not contend that the claims must recite the asserted benefit or improvement. A claim need not recite reduced processing resources, reduced latency, or reduced bandwidth in order to reflect an improvement producing those effects. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc., 957 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2020). What the claim must recite is the mechanism the specification identifies as producing the improvement, and the claim’s scope must be commensurate with that mechanism. Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d. 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Here the specification locates the improvement in the paragraphs, but the corresponding limitation does not appear in any claim. The Examiner does not dispute that the paragraphs describe a technical problem and a technical solution. What is required is that the claim recite the mechanism the specification identifies as producing the improvement and that the scope of the claim be commensurate with the mechanism. Nothing in Claim 1 or Claim 11 recites this mechanism.
On pages 13-14, Applicant argues that the recited elements individually and as a whole amount to significantly more than the purported abstract idea, and that the Office Action’s characterization of the additional elements as “mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components used as tools” is incorrect. The Step 2B analysis above evaluates the additional elements both individually and as an ordered combination and supports the findings of conventionality with Berkheimer.
On page 14, Applicant argues that the Office Action fails to establish a prima facie case of ineligibility. The 101 rejection above satisfies a prima facie case of ineligibility.
On pages 15-16, the rejection over Todisco in view of Qin is withdrawn and Qin is no longer relied upon. The Examiner notes that the limitations Applicant address to Qin are, now correctly mapped to Todisco.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1-3, 6-13, and 16-20 are rejected. No claim is allowed and no claim is presently drafted contains allowable subject matter. However, the allowable subject matter is in the specification but not in the claim. The Examiner notes that the prior art of record does not teach or suggest … incremental or newly relevant data is transmitted for follow-on prompts, rather than the entire accumulated context” as discussed in ¶¶ [0021], [0023]. Claims 1 and 11 would be allowable over the art of record if amended to incorporate this feature “generating, for a follow-on prompt, an input context that excludes data of the selected subset of wager opportunities previously provided to the language model” along with the limitations of Claims 7 and 17 respectively, AND if the rejections under 35 USC 101 and 112(b) set forth above are also overcome. Applicant is invited to contact the Examiner to discuss this or comparable claim language.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUNA-KAY HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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 at (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.
/S.N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights