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
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on 13 July 2026.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, and 15 are amended.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s remarks filed on 13 July 2026:
a. Nonstatutory double patenting rejections of the pending claims are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and remarks.
b. Rejections of the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and remarks.
c. Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of the pending claims have been fully considered but are not deemed persuasive.
On pages 13-23 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant argues against the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of the pending claims. Applicant argues that claims 1 and 15 do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One; does recite a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two; and/or does recite significantly more than an abstract idea under Step 2B.
The Office respectfully disagrees with the above remarks. With regards to the analysis at Step 2A, Prong One; Applicant reproduces a number of limitations from claim 1 (paragraph spanning pages 13-14) and then argues that those limitations are not a mental process (pages 14-15). Applicant is advised of the following:
“Claims in a pending application must be ‘given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.’” MPEP § 2111 citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..
With regards to subject matter eligibility analysis, “It is essential that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim be established prior to examining a claim for eligibility. The BRI sets the boundaries of the coverage sought by the claim and will influence whether the claim seeks to cover subject matter that is beyond the four statutory categories or encompasses subject matter that falls within the exceptions.” MPEP 2106(II).
“Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible,” MPEP 2106.05(f) citing Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. Accordingly, “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)).
Applicant’s analysis is improper because Applicant has failed to construe the claims under their broadest reasonable interpretation. Furthermore, a number of claim 1’s limitations listed by Applicant are additional elements, beyond the abstract idea, that are analyzed at Steps 2A, Prong Two and 2B; not at Step 2A, Prong One. As detailed below in the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, the following limitations are additional elements beyond the abstract idea: a) storing the simulated outcome values in matrix fields, b) storing the calculation table, and c) retrieving a stored standardized pricing query. Also as detailed below, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra solution activity and well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d). With regards to generating the standardized outcome matrix by running contest simulations, claim 1 does not specify the type of “contest simulation” or how it is to be performed. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claimed “contest simulations” encompass a series of mathematical operations that produce output in the form of a matrix. Hence, this limitation is an abstract idea under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping. On pages 18-19 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant asserts that the claims do not recite any abstract idea under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping because there is no formula or mathematical relationship recited (remarks, page 18, last full paragraph). Applicant is advised of the following:
“It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a ‘‘series of mathematical calculations based on selected information’’ are directed to abstract ideas); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims to a ‘‘process of organizing information through mathematical correlations’’ are directed to an abstract idea); and Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (identifying the concept of ‘‘managing a stable value protected life insurance policy by performing calculations and manipulating the results’’ as an abstract idea).””
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)
Alternatively, this limitation may be deemed an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping because a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally perform a couple of contest simulations in the manner claimed. With regards to claim 15’s recitation of 10,000 simulations of a contest, assuming arguendo that this number of contest simulations is beyond human mental capacity, this limitation still amounts to nothing more than a series of mathematical operations under the BRI. A series of mathematical operations performed 10,000 times still remains nothing more than mathematical operations. Hence, claim 15’s contest simulation limitation remains an abstract idea under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping.
With regards to the analysis at Step 2A, Prong Two; Applicant characterizes the practical application as “simulation-generated outcome data using a particular
matrix/query/equation architecture that reduces computational load and latency” (remarks, page 17, last full paragraph). However, as set forth above and as detailed below in the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, generating the outcome data by running contest simulations is an abstract idea under the “Mathematical Concepts” and/or “Mental Processes” groupings. “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements…In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception.” MPEP 2106.05(a), (emphasis added). Also as detailed below in the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claimed storing and querying information are generic, high-level recitations that amount to mere data gathering. Mere data gathering has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra solution activity in the computing arts. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, these limitations, when considered individually, cannot be deemed a practical application. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With regards to the analysis at Step 2B, Applicant asserts a specific improvement to computer data processing (remarks, pages 15-16) and an ordered combination of limitations that results in a nonconventional arrangement similar to BASCOM (remarks, pages 19-20). Applicant’s argument regarding a specific improvement to computer data processing is unpersuasive because the claims do not recite any data structure or claim element that is specific to computers. Relevant claim elements include a standard outcome matrix, a calculation table, pricing queries, pricing equations, etc. None of these claim elements are specific to the way computers operate. Rather, a computer is being invoked in the claims merely as a tool. “Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible,” MPEP 2106.05(f) citing Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. With regards to the BASCOM ruling, the Court in that case found the following:
“The inventive concept described and claimed in the ’606 patent is the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. This design gives the filtering tool both the benefits of a filter on a local computer and the benefits of a filter on the ISP server. BASCOM explains that the inventive concept rests on taking advantage of the ability of at least some ISPs to identify individual accounts that communicate with the ISP server, and to associate a request for Internet content with a specific individual account.”
BASCOM Global Internet Services v. AT&T MOBILITY, 827 F. 3d 1341, page 15, last paragraph.
In the instant case, looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity; mere description of field of use and/or technological environment; well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter; and/or generic computer implementation. Applicant identifies nothing unusual or significant with respect to any of those activities. Additionally, nearly every computer performs those activities. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 ( explaining that "[n]early every computer" performs "basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions"); Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Cap. One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1339-40 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (discussing "the abstract idea of collecting, displaying, and manipulating data" using computer data structures); Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that arranging information, sorting information, storing information, and retrieving information are conventional computer activities). Hence, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, and analogy to BASCOM is improper. The instant claims are not patent eligible.
On page 21 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant addresses claim 8 specifically. Applicant briefly reviews the features of claim 8 and summarily concludes “. This is not a mental process or generic display of a result. It is a specific computer-implemented repricing process that uses a query/matrix/equation architecture to reprice a modified parlay leg without rerunning simulations” (remarks, page 21).
The Office respectfully disagrees with the above remarks. As set forth above and as further detailed below in the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, claim 8 recites an abstract idea in the following limitations: a) claimed generating of a standardized outcome matrix (mathematical concept and/or mental process), b) determining if a standardized pricing query exists in a query lookup table (mental process), c) selecting a set of outcome data (mental process), d) pricing the leg of the multi-leg parlay (mathematical concept and/or mental process). As detailed below, the remaining claim elements are high level, generic recitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity; well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter; and/or generic computer implementation. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity; well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter; and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not amount to a practical application nor significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
On pages 21-22 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant addresses claim 15 specifically, asserting that it recites a practical application and/or inventive concept.
The Office respectfully disagrees with the above remarks. As set forth above and as further detailed below in the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, claim 15 recites an abstract idea in the following limitations: a) claimed running of a contest simulation (mathematical concept), b) claimed determining whether the market request is for a predefined market or a user-requested market (mental process), c) claimed generating a standardized pricing query (mental process), d) claimed selecting of a set of outcome data, and e) claimed pricing of the market (mathematical concept and/or mental process). As detailed below, the remaining claim elements are high level, generic recitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity; well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter; and/or generic computer implementation. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity; well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter; and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not amount to a practical application nor significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
On page 22 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant asserts that “The claims do not preempt market pricing or probability calculation” and therefore the claims should be deemed patent eligible.
The Office respectfully disagrees with the above remarks. Applicant is advised of the following:
While preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, questions of preemption are inherent in and resolved by the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (the Alice/Mayo test referred to by the Office as Steps 2A and 2B). Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1150, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379, 115 USPQ2d 1152, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2015). It is necessary to evaluate eligibility using the Alice/Mayo test, because while a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate that a claim is eligible. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10-11 n.14 (1981). See MPEP § 2106.04(I).
The instant claims, when interpreted under the BRI and analyzed under the Alice/Mayo framework, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, as set forth above and as further detailed below. Hence, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons that claims 1, 8, and 15 are ineligible, as set forth above, and for the additional reasons detailed below in the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
As to claim 1, this claim recites “generating a standardized outcome matrix for a contest by running a plurality of contest simulations.” The claim does not specify the type of “contest simulation” or how it is to be performed. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claimed “contest simulations” encompass a series of mathematical operations that produce output in the form of a matrix. Hence, this limitation is an abstract idea under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping. Alternatively, this limitation may be deemed an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping because a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally perform a couple of contest simulations in the manner claimed.
This claim also recites selecting, by executing the standardized pricing query, a set of outcome data from the plurality of matrix fields of an outcome matrix and the one or more pricing equations for pricing the predefined market. This claim does not specify nor place any limits upon the claimed “set of outcome data.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claimed “set of outcome data” encompasses a simple dataset having just a few data records/values. Similarly, these claims do not specify nor place any limits upon the claimed “outcome matrix” and “the one or more pricing equations.” Under the BRI, the claimed “outcome matrix” encompasses a simple matrix having just a few rows and columns, and the claimed “one or more pricing equations” encompass a simple case of just one equation. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses such a simple case, a human could mentally perform the claimed “selecting” with the aid of pencil and paper. The claimed “selecting” amounts to no more than a series of judgements/evaluations, i.e. judging/evaluating each data record/value to decide whether or not it should be included in the outcome data. With the aid of pencil and paper, a human can utilize a pricing query to mentally perform these judgements/evaluations in the manner claimed. Hence, this limitation falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This claim also recites “pricing the predefined market by applying the one or more pricing equations to the set of outcome data without rerunning the plurality of contest simulations after receiving the market request.” The claimed “pricing” amounts to no more than mathematical calculation(s). Hence, this limitation is an abstract idea under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping. Furthermore, given that the BRI of the claim encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally perform the calculations necessary to achieve the claimed “pricing.” Hence, this limitation may alternatively be deemed an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Other than the abstract idea, the claims recite the following:
a) “storing, for respective simulations of the plurality of contest simulations, simulated outcome values in matrix fields corresponding to wager parameters comprising at least a team or player parameter, a proposition parameter, a value parameter, an outcome type parameter, and a time-of-occurrence parameter”;
b) “storing a calculation table comprising pricing equations associated with respective wager-parameter combinations”;
c) “receiving a market request from a user computing device, wherein the market
request is for a predefined market”;
d) “retrieving a stored standardized pricing query indicative of the predefined market, wherein the stored standardized pricing query is retrieved from a query lookup table wherein the stored standardized pricing query identifies a plurality of the matrix fields of the standardized outcome matrix and one or more pricing equations in the calculation table”;
e) “causing display of the predefined market by the user computing device”; and
f) “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, perform a method”.
Limitations (a) through (d) amount to no more than mere data gathering, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Limitation (e) amounts to no more than merely outputting a result, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP 2106.05(g). Limitation (f) is recited at a high level of generality, i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computing functions. Accordingly, these 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. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Limitations (a) through (d) amount to no more than mere data gathering, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the courts have deemed receiving data to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, as in the following cases: Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Limitation (e) amounts to no more than merely outputting a result, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, Applicant’s specification provides few details about the claimed display or its functions (see para. 0119 of Applicant’s published specification). This indicates that this feature is well known in the art. Cf Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (explaining that "a patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art"). As a result, the written description adequately supports that additional element (e) is conventional and performs well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A)1. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, additional element (f) amounts to no more than mere field of use limitations and instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using conventional computer components and functions cannot provide an inventive concept. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity; well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter; and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
As to dependent claim 2, this claim recites generating the outcome matrix running a certain number of simulations of the contest. As set forth above in the parent claim, the BRI of running the contest simulations encompasses a series of mathematical operations. The fact that this limitation amounts to a series of mathematical operations does not change based upon the number of mathematical operations performed. This limitation remains an abstract idea under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping. This claim also recites storing certain numbers of event fields. This limitation is amounts to mere data storage, which is insignificant extra-solution activity and well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter for the same reasons set forth above in the parent claim. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity; well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter; and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not amount to a practical application nor significantly more than the abstract idea. These claims are not patent eligible.
As to dependent claims 3-4, these claims recite generating a second query by parsing and translating one or more parameters. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally generate the second query by parsing and translating parameters, as claimed. Hence, these limitations are an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping. Claim 3 also recites receiving a second market request. For the same reasons set forth above in the discussion of the parent claims, the claimed receiving of a second market request is insignificant extra solution activity (mere data gathering) and well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter. Hence, this limitation cannot be deemed a practical application nor an inventive concept. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity; well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter; and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, do not amount to a practical application nor an inventive concept. These claims are not patent eligible.
As to dependent claim 5, this claim recites generating a second query based on a cashout request. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally generate the second query based on a cashout request, as claimed. Hence, this limitation is an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping. This claim also recites receiving a cashout request. For the same reasons set forth above in the discussion of the parent claims, the claimed receiving of a cashout request is insignificant extra solution activity (mere data gathering) and well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter. Hence, this limitation cannot be deemed a practical application nor an inventive concept. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity; well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter; and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, do not amount to a practical application nor an inventive concept. These claims are not patent eligible.
As to dependent claim 6, this claim recites “selecting” and “repricing” limitations that are analogous to those recited in the parent claims. These limitations are mentally performable abstract idea limitations for the same reasons set forth above in the discussion of the parent claims.
As to dependent claim 7, this claim recites certain details of events during a contest result. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, this claim remains a mentally performable abstract idea, for reasons similar to those set forth above.
As to claim 8, this claim recites generating a standardized outcome matrix from a plurality of contest simulations, the standardized outcome matrix storing simulated outcome values in fields corresponding to wager parameters. The claim does not specify the type of “contest simulation” or how it is to be performed. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claimed “contest simulations” encompass a series of mathematical operations that produce output. Hence, this limitation is an abstract idea under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping. Alternatively, this limitation may be deemed an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping because a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally perform a couple of contest simulations to generate an outcome matrix in the manner claimed.
This claim also recites determining if a standardized pricing query representing the modification of the leg of the multileg parlay exists in a query lookup table. The claimed determination amounts to no more than a judgement/evaluation. For the simple case encompassed by the BRI of the claims, this judgement/evaluation can be mentally performed by a human with the aid of pencil and paper. Hence, this limitation is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
This claim also recites selecting, by executing the stored standardized pricing query, a set of outcome data from the identified matrix fields of an outcome matrix for pricing the leg of the multi-leg parlay and selecting the one or more pricing equations. This claim does not specify nor place any limits upon the claimed “set of outcome data.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claimed “set of outcome data” encompasses a simple dataset having just a few data records/values. Similarly, these claims do not specify nor place any limits upon the claimed “outcome matrix” and “the one or more pricing equations.” Under the BRI, the claimed “outcome matrix” encompasses a simple matrix having just a few rows and columns, and the claimed “one or more pricing equations” encompass a simple case of just one equation. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses such a simple case, a human could mentally perform the claimed “selecting” with the aid of pencil and paper. The claimed “selecting” amounts to no more than a series of judgements/evaluations, i.e. judging/evaluating each data record/value to decide whether or not it should be included in the outcome data and judging/evaluating the pricing equation(s). With the aid of pencil and paper, a human can utilize a pricing query to mentally perform these judgements/evaluations in the manner claimed. Hence, this limitation falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This claim also recites “pricing the leg of the multi-leg parlay by applying the one or more pricing equations to the selected set of outcome data without rerunning the plurality of contest simulations after receiving the market request.” The claimed “pricing” amounts to no more than mathematical calculation(s). Hence, this limitation is an abstract idea under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping. Furthermore, given that the BRI of the claim encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally perform the calculations necessary to achieve the claimed “pricing.” Hence, this limitation may alternatively be deemed an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Other than the abstract idea, the claims recite the following:
a) “storing a calculation table comprising pricing equations associated with respective wager-parameter combinations”;
b) “receiving a market request from a user computing device, wherein the market
request is for a modification of a leg of a multi-leg parlay, the modification
changing at least one wager parameter of the leg while at least one other leg
of the multi-leg parlay remains unmodified”;
c) “responsive to the query existing, retrieving the stored standardized pricing query indicative of the leg of the multi-leg parlay, wherein the query is retrieved from the query lookup table, wherein the stored standardized pricing query identifies matrix fields of the standardized outcome matrix and one or more pricing equations in the calculation table for the leg”;
d) “causing display of the predefined market by the user computing device”; and
e) “at least one processor”, and “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, perform a method.”
Limitations (a) through (c) amount to no more than mere data gathering, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Limitation (d) amounts to no more than merely outputting a result, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP 2106.05(g). Limitation (e) is recited at a high level of generality, i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computing functions. Accordingly, these 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. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Limitations (a) through (c) amount to no more than mere data gathering, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the courts have deemed receiving data to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, as in the following cases: Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Limitation (d) amounts to no more than merely outputting a result, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, Applicant’s specification provides few details about the claimed display or its functions (see para. 0119 of Applicant’s published specification). This indicates that this feature is well known in the art. Cf Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (explaining that "a patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art"). As a result, the written description adequately supports that additional element (d) is conventional and performs well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A)2. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, additional element (e) amounts to no more than mere field of use limitations and instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using conventional computer components and functions cannot provide an inventive concept. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity; well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter; and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
As to dependent claims 9, 11, and 13, these claims recite certain details of the multi-leg parlay. These limitations are mentally performable abstract idea limitations for the same reasons set forth above in the discussion of the parent claims. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, this claim remains a mentally performable abstract idea, for reasons similar to those set forth above. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, these claims remain a mentally performable abstract idea, for reasons similar to those set forth above.
As to dependent claims 10 and 12, these claims recite regenerating the outcome matrix. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally generate the outcome matrix. Hence, these claims are abstract ideas under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
As to dependent claim 14, this claim recites generating a second query associated with a second leg of multi-leg parlay. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally generate a second query in the manner claimed. Hence, this limitation is an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping. This claim also recites receiving a second market request. For the same reasons set forth above in the discussion of the parent claims, the claimed receiving of a second market request is insignificant extra solution activity (mere data gathering) and well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter. Hence, this limitation cannot be deemed a practical application nor an inventive concept. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity; well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter; and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, do not amount to a practical application nor an inventive concept. These claims are not patent eligible.
As to claim 15, the claim recites running a contest simulation comprising at least 10,000 simulations of a contest. The claim does not specify the type of “contest simulation” or how it is to be performed. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claimed “contest simulations” encompass a series of mathematical operations that produce output. It is important to note that reciting a high number of simulations does not transform an ineligible “Mathematical Concepts” abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. Performance of a series of mathematical operations 10,000 times still amounts to no more than mere performance of mathematical operations. Hence, this limitation is an abstract idea under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping.
This claim also recites determining whether the market request is for a predefined market or a user-requested market. The claimed determination amounts to no more than a judgement or evaluation, which can be mentally performed by a human with the aid of pencil and paper. Hence, this limitation is an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
This claim also recites responsive to determining that the market request is for the user-requested market, generating a standardized pricing query by parsing one or more parameters of the user-requested market and translating the one or more parameters into a standardized query language. Under the BRI, this limitation encompasses the simple case of parsing one single parameter and translating it into a standardized query language. A human can mentally perform this with the aid of pencil and paper. Hence, this limitation is an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
This claim also recites selecting, by the stored standardized pricing query or the generated standardized pricing query associated with the market request, a set of outcome data from the outcome matrix and the one or more pricing equations for pricing the market. The claim does not specify nor place any limits upon the claimed “outcome data.” Under the BRI, this limitation encompasses a selection of a just few entries from the outcome matrix to form the claimed “set of outcome data.” Similarly, this claim does not specify nor place any limits upon the claimed “outcome matrix.” Under the BRI, the claimed “outcome matrix” encompasses a simple matrix having just a few rows and columns, and the claimed “one or more pricing equations” encompass a simple case of just one equation. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses such a simple case, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, utilize a pricing query in the manner claimed to mentally perform the claimed “selecting”. The claimed “selecting” amounts to no more than a series of judgements/evaluations, i.e. judging/evaluating each data record/value to decide whether or not it should be included in the outcome data. With the aid of pencil and paper, a human can mentally perform these judgements/evaluations, and a human could do these judgements/evaluations in according to a pricing query in the manner claimed. Hence, this limitation is an abstract idea under “Mental Processes” grouping.
This claim also recites “pricing the market by applying the one or more pricing equations to the set of outcome data without rerunning the contest simulation after receiving the market request.” The claimed “pricing” amounts to no more than mathematical calculation(s). Hence, this limitation is an abstract idea under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping. Furthermore, given that the BRI of the claim encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally perform the calculations necessary to achieve the claimed “pricing.” Hence, this limitation may alternatively be deemed an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Other than the abstract idea, the claims recite the following:
a) “storing outcome data in a standardized outcome matrix, wherein the outcome data is indicative of probabilities of one or more live events occurring during the contest, the standardized outcome matrix comprising matrix fields corresponding to wager parameters including at least team or player, value, proposition, outcome type, and time of occurrence”;
b) “storing a calculation table comprising pricing equations associated with respective combinations of the wager parameters”;
c) “receiving a market request associated with a market from a user computing device”;
d) “responsive to determining that the market request is for the predefined market, retrieving a stored standardized pricing query from a query lookup table”; and
e) “causing display of the market by the user computing device.”
Limitations (a) through (d) amount to no more than mere data gathering, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Limitation (e) amounts to no more than merely outputting a result, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP 2106.05(g). Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity. Hence, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Limitations (a) through (d) amount to no more than mere data gathering, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the courts have deemed receiving data to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, as in the following cases: Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Limitation (e) amounts to no more than merely outputting a result, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, Applicant’s specification provides few details about the claimed display or its functions (see para. 0119 of Applicant’s published specification). This indicates that this feature is well known in the art. Cf Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (explaining that "a patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art"). As a result, the written description adequately supports that additional element (e) is conventional and performs well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A)3. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity; and well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter. Hence, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
As to dependent claim 16, this claim recites at least one market recommended to a user. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally recommend a market in the manner claimed. Hence, this limitation is an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping. The claimed “user computing device” is recitation of a generic computer performing generic computing functions, which cannot be deemed a practical application nor an inventive concept. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity; well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter; and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, do not amount to a practical application nor an inventive concept. These claims are not patent eligible.
As to dependent claims 17-18, these claims recite determining that the market request is for a user-requested market, and if so, generating the query. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally perform the claimed “determining” and “generating.” Hence, these limitations are abstract ideas under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
As to dependent claim 19, this claim recites retrieving the query from a query lookup table. For the same reasons set forth above in the discussion of the parent claims, the claimed “retrieving” is insignificant extra solution activity (mere data gathering) and well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter. Hence, this limitation cannot be deemed a practical application nor an inventive concept. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity; well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter; and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, do not amount to a practical application nor an inventive concept. These claims are not patent eligible.
As to dependent claim 20, this claim recites that the query is written in a standardized query language. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally generate the claimed query. A human can mentally generate a query in a standardized query language. Hence, this claim is an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UMAR MIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10 am to 6:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on (571) 272-4078. 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.
/Umar Mian/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
1 MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A) explains that a specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional ( or an equivalent term) or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
2 MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A) explains that a specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional ( or an equivalent term) or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
3 MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A) explains that a specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional ( or an equivalent term) or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
Prosecution Insights