Patrik KAHARI

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 4, 2022

2021003718 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 16/426,379 05/30/2019 Patrik KAHARI 12270001US 4213 62008 7590 01/04/2022 MAIER & MAIER, PLLC 345 SOUTH PATRICK STREET ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 EXAMINER LIDDLE, JAY TRENT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3715 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2022 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): docket@maierandmaier.com maierandmaier_PAIR@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PATRIK KAHARI Appeal 2021-003718 Application 16/426,379 Technology Center 3700 Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-5 and 7-17. Claim 6 has been canceled. Appeal Br. 25 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Patrik Kahari. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) 2, filed Feb. 19, 2021. Appeal 2021-003718 Application 16/426,379 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter relates to “a non-transitory computer- readable medium for managing wagers with instructions stored thereon.” Spec. ¶ 9.2 Claims 1 and 12 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites: 1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium for managing wagers, comprising instructions stored thereon, that, when executed on a processor, perform the steps of: generating a bet matrix for a game, wherein the bet matrix comprises individual cells representing possible outcomes of game events; displaying the bet matrix through a user interface; calculating current odds for at least one outcome occurring wherein calculating current odds comprises retrieving real-time information comprising at least one of current game state data and current game statistics, comparing the retrieved real-time information to existing information and determining whether the odds for any outcomes have changed, ending a real-time update when odds have not changed for any outcomes; processing an input of a selection of at least one cell; processing input of a stake; automatically calculating a profit or loss for each outcome based on the selection, the stake, and the odds; presenting the profit or loss for each outcome in a respective cell; processing and presenting odds for the selection in real- time, wherein the odds are based on the game; creating a bet slip, wherein the bet slip includes at least one bet selection; processing a place bet instruction; placing a bet according to the bet slip; creating a placed bet record; 2 Specification (“Spec.”), filed May 30, 2019. Appeal 2021-003718 Application 16/426,379 3 creating a combined bet portfolio for a foundational market comprising all placed bets from a user based on the foundational market merged into one collection; calculating a comprehensive bet position reconciling multiple bets for each cell and associated game outcome; updating the odds in real time for previously placed bets in the combined bet portfolio based on a live game state and updating the comprehensive bet position; and displaying the bet matrix with an updated, live profit or loss associated with each cell of the bet matrix based on the comprehensive bet position. THE REJECTION Claims 1-5 and 7-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. ANALYSIS Claims 1-5, 7, 9-15, and 17 Appellant does not offer arguments in favor of dependent claims 2-5, 7, 9-11, 13-15, and 17 and independent claim 12 separate from those presented for independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 6-19. We select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 2-5, 7, 9-15, and 17 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2019). An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (“Alice”). In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo Appeal 2021-003718 Application 16/426,379 4 and Alice. Id. at 217-18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012) (“Mayo”)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Bilski”) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”). Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594-95 (1978) (“Flook”)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972) (“Benson”)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981) (“Diehr”)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267-68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))). In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 191 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having Appeal 2021-003718 Application 16/426,379 5 said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, . . . and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”). If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent- eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (citation omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id. The PTO published revised guidance on the application of § 101. See USPTO’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Revised Guidance”). Under that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing Appeal 2021-003718 Application 16/426,379 6 human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes);3 and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual for Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h) (9th ed. 2018)).4 Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.5 See Revised Guidance.6 3 Referred to as “Revised Step 2A, Prong 1” in the Revised Guidance (hereinafter “Step 2A(1)”). 4 Referred to as “Revised Step 2A, Prong 2” in the Revised Guidance (hereinafter “Step 2A(2)”). 5 Items (3) and (4) continue to be collectively referred to as “Step 2B” of the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. 6 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (January 7, 2019) (hereinafter “Revised Guidance”) (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-01-07/pdf/2018-28282.pdf). An update to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance issued in October 2019 (“October 2019 Update,” available at https:// www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019 update.pdf). Appeal 2021-003718 Application 16/426,379 7 Analysis under the Revised Guidance Step 1 - Statutory Category Claim 1, as a non-transitory computer-readable medium (manufacture) claim, recites one of the enumerated categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, the issue before us is whether claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Step 2A(1) - Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception? The Examiner points out that claim 1 recites the steps of generating a bet matrix for a game, wherein the bet matrix comprises individual cells representing possible outcomes of game events; displaying the bet matrix through a user interface; calculating current odds for at least one outcome occurring wherein calculating current odds comprises retrieving real-time information comprising at least one of current game state data and current game statistics, comparing the retrieved real-rime information to existing information and determining whether the odds for any outcomes have changed, ending a real-time update when odds have not changed for any outcomes; processing an input of a selection of at least one cell; processing input of a stake; automatically calculating a profit or loss for each outcome based on the selection, the stake, and the odds; presenting the profit or loss for each outcome in a respective cell; processing and presenting odds for the selection in real-time, wherein the odds are based on the game; creating a bet slip, wherein the bet slip includes at least one bet selection; processing a place bet instruction; placing a bet according to the bet slip; creating a placed bet record[;] creating a combined bet portfolio for a foundational market comprising all placed bets from a user based on the foundational market merged into one collection; calculating a comprehensive bet position reconciling multiple bets for each cell and associated game outcome; updating the odds in real time for previously placed bets in the combined bet portfolio based on a live game state and updating the comprehensive bet position; and displaying the bet matrix with Appeal 2021-003718 Application 16/426,379 8 an updated, live profit or loss associated with each cell of the bet matrix based on the comprehensive bet position. Final Act. 2-3.7 The Examiner determines that “[s]uch claim limitations are related to a fundamental economic practice of managing wagers into groupings and thus is a certain method of organizing human activity.” Id. at 3.8 Appellant contends that claim 1 is not directed to a “fundamental economic process” because [p]ursuant to the reasoning in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.,[] to be fundamental, the following fact inquiry should be assessed: (1) The claims should be directed to a “fundamental” economic practice; (2) The claims should be directed to a practice that has been “long” practiced in the system of commerce; and (3) The claims should be directed to a “prevalent” practice in our system of commerce. None of these are the case. Appeal Br. 13 (citing Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 890 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018)(“Berkheimer”)). Appellant argues that “conventional platforms are not capable of combining bets into a larger group, as the outcomes are fundamentally different.” Id.; see also id. at 19 (arguing that “the reconciliation of wagers from several distinct betting markets based on a single foundational market, made possible using the claimed matrix, is not a 7 Final Office Action (“Final Act.), dated Oct. 2, 2020. 8 The Examiner also determines that the recited steps above “are related to a mental process in that the entirety of the claims could be done by a human using the mind and/or through the use of pen and paper.” See Final Act. 3. However, determining whether claim 1 recites an abstract idea of a mental process--rather than or in conjunction with, an abstract idea of organizing human activity--does not alter our analysis below. Appeal 2021-003718 Application 16/426,379 9 foundational or basic concept in wagering”), Reply Br. 49 (arguing that the Examiner fails to account for “the fact that the combined bet portfolio for a foundational market comprises bet matrix data reconciled from multiple bet markets”). The Examiner correctly responds that Appellant appears to combine the requirements of step 2B with the requirements of step 2A, prong 1. [Determining] that something is a fundamental economic practice with regards to whether something is an abstract idea[] does not require a Berkheimer analysis as Appellant argues. Rather Berkheimer is to determine whether an additional element is old and well- known in the art (i.e. Step 2B). Ans. 5;10 see also Berkeimer, 890 F.3d at 1370. Further, Appellant’s contention that the outcomes of conventional platforms are “fundamentally different” fails to explain why claim 1 does not recite a fundamental economic practice of managing wagers into groupings. See also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”). Next, Appellant appears to argue that claim 1 is novel by reiterating certain aspects of claim 1 and contending that “[t]he Office asserts that this analysis is not convincing because novelty is different from eligibility” and that “[i]n Bilski and Alice, the Court considered old textbooks when making th[e] determination” of whether a claim is directed to a fundamental economic practice. Appeal Br. 14 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611-12, 130 (2010); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, at 219-20 9 Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed May 24, 2021. 10 Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), dated Mar. 24, 2021. Appeal 2021-003718 Application 16/426,379 10 (2014)); see also id. at 14-15 (citing Trading Technologies v. CGQ, et al., 675 Fed. App. 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Trading Technologies”)). We agree with the Examiner’s assertion that the issue of novelty is different from the issue of patent subject matter eligibility. See Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”); see also SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“No matter how much of an advance in the finance field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm.”). Further, the Supreme Court’s consideration of prior art that includes old textbooks when making a determination whether a claim is directed to a fundamental economic practice, is immaterial. Here, Appellant does not refute that the steps of claim 1 reiterated by the Examiner in the Final Office Action (see Final Act. 2-3) relate to a fundamental economic practice of managing wagers into groupings. Appellant’s alleged novelty of the combination of recited steps in claim 1 that includes subject matter such as reconciling to a foundational market (see Appeal Br. 13) is immaterial to claim 1’s eligibility for patent subject matter under § 101. We also note that Appellant’s discussion of Trading Technologies (see Appeal Br. 14-15) is unclear. To the extent Appellant is contending that claim 1 of the subject application is similar to the claims of Trading Technologies, and thus should be determined as not reciting a fundamental economic practice, we disagree. In Trading Technologies, the Court determined that the claims were directed to a patent-eligible concept in that they required a specific, structured graphical user interface paired with Appeal 2021-003718 Application 16/426,379 11 prescribed functionality. See Trading Technologies, 675 Fed. App. at 1004. Here, claim 1 does not recite--and the Specification does not disclose--any specific, structured graphical user interface paired with prescribed functionality (Appellant’s “user interface” is further discussed below). See also Ans. 4-5 (explaining that “[i]n the present case[,] it is not a new graphical user interface that has been invented,” and even to Appellant’s own arguments, “it is a way to ‘combin[e] bets into a larger group . . . [.] The present claims allow for meaningful integration of individual markets by first reconciling to a foundational market.’”). Appellant appears to argue that the Examiner incorrectly determined that claim 1 is directed to a fundamental economic practice of hedging by arguing that “a hedge is an investment that is made with the intention of reducing the risk of adverse price movements in an asset, which includes taking an offsetting position” and the Examiner “has broadened the meaning of hedging.” Appeal Br. 15. This argument is unpersuasive. The Examiner did not state that claim 1 recites the steps of hedging an investment and nothing else. Rather, as Appellant acknowledges, the Examiner asserts that “the claims are clearly more related to hedging of wagers.” See Appeal Br. 15 (emphasis added); see also Final Act. 5. Moreover, in the Final Office Action, the Examiner asserts that claim 1’s steps, as reiterated by the Examiner (see Final Act. 2- 3), “are related to a fundamental economic practice of managing wagers into groupings.” Final Act. 3 (emphases added). As noted above, Appellant does not refute managing wagers into groupings as a fundamental economic practice. Appeal 2021-003718 Application 16/426,379 12 To be sure, as to Step 2A(1), which analyzes whether claim 1 recites a judicial exception, we determine that claim 1 recites a method of organizing human activity, particularly, managing wagers into groupings. See Revised Guidance 52 (identifying methods of organizing human activity as “managing personal behavior or relationships or [activities] between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)”); n.13 quoting Interval Licensing LCC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344-45 (concluding that “[s]tanding alone, the act of providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision of an initial set of information is an abstract idea,” observing that the district court “pointed to the nontechnical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in the middle of a meeting or conversation as further illustrating the basic, longstanding practice that is the focus of the [patent ineligible] claimed invention.”); quoting In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that “[a]pplicants’ claims, directed to rules for conducting a wagering game” are abstract). Here, for example, the steps reiterated by the Examiner on pages 2-3 of the Final Office Action can be regarded as steps in a method of organizing human activity that manages wagers into groupings. Standing alone, the method of managing wagers into groupings including the above-identified steps, is nontechnical human activity such as organizing or grouping data, including bets, which is a longstanding practice. For example, the Specification describes in the Background Section, “bookmakers organiz[ing] betting.” Spec. ¶ 2. Thus, these limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are steps that recite a method of organizing human activity that manages personal behavior Appeal 2021-003718 Application 16/426,379 13 including following rules or instructions (by organizing bets or managing by grouping wagers). We agree with the Examiner that claim 1’s recitation of a user interface is merely to aid in the claimed task. See Ans. 4 (asserting that “[t]he present claims are dealing with . . . bets into a combined portfolio and merely uses an interface to aid in the task”). Appellant does not provide sound reasoning as to why the steps recited in claim 1 do not relate to managing wagers into groupings, why managing wagers into groupings is not a fundamental economic practice, or why the steps of managing wagers into groupings as recited in claim 1 do not fall within the province of “managing personal behavior or relationships or [activities] between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” Accordingly, under Step 2A(1), we conclude that claim 1 recites a method of organizing human activity, and thus, a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea. Step 2A(2) - Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application? If the claim recites a patent-ineligible concept, as we conclude above, we proceed to the “practical application” Step 2A, second prong, in which we determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. The Revised Guidance is “designed to more accurately and consistently identify claims that recite a practical application of a judicial Appeal 2021-003718 Application 16/426,379 14 exception [] and thus are not ‘directed to’ a judicial exception.” Revised Guidance 53. Appellant argues that claim 1 “recites many improvements including the separate manipulation and processing of a combined portfolio” and “[t]he computing environment is improved because a user can sell, increase or decrease the combined bet portfolio position as a new wagering entity, which does not require individual processing of each underlying bet from various markets.” Appeal Br. 16-17 (citing Ex Parte Smith, App. No. 2018- 000064 (PTAB Feb 1, 2019)); see also Reply Br. 9 (arguing that “the computing environment is improved because the combined bet portfolio can be sold, increased, or decreased ‘as a new wagering entity, which does not require individual processing of each underlying bet from various markets’”). This argument is also unpersuasive. The Examiner correctly responds that Appellant is merely providing an opinion, that the Ex Parte Smith decision cited by Appellant is non-precedential and does not relate to combining various wagers, and that claim 1 “is not an improvement to the computer itself, but rather is merely using the computer as a tool to perform the function.” Ans. 6-7. Notably, claim 1 requires “displaying the bet matrix through a user interface.” Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.).11 In the Final Office Action, the Examiner states that the judicial exception of claim 1 “is not integrated into 11 Although the Examiner considers the user interface recited in claim 1 as being part of the abstract idea (see Final Act. 2-3), we note that the user interface can be regarded as an additional element for the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis and the Step 2B analysis. Appeal 2021-003718 Application 16/426,379 15 a practical application because there is nothing in the claim beyond the abstract idea” and “[a]t best[,] the abstract idea is applied to a wagering environment which is applying the abstract idea to a certain technological field which does not qualify as a practical application.” Final Act. 3. The Specification merely discloses that “[t]he matrix may be displayed through a user interface” (Spec. ¶ 9), and that “[a] draft bet may be received or processed 210 from a user interface or may be transmitted from an external source” (id. ¶ 47; see also id. ¶ 50 (disclosing that “[t]he draft bet modification may be initiated by instructions provided to a processor, such as by a user interface 402”)). Upon review of Appellant’s Specification, a preponderance of the evidence supports a determination that the claimed “user interface” is a generic component and that claim 1’s recited step of “displaying the bet matrix through a user interface” is an activity merely to implement an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f) (“As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to transform a judicial exception into a patent- eligible application, the additional element or combination of elements must do ‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’” (quoting Alice, 573 U.S. at 222-26) (alteration in original)). See also Final Act. 3. As the Specification does not disclose any particular functioning of the user interface (or the processor), we agree with the Examiner’s determination that claim 1 “is not an improvement to the computer itself, but rather is merely using the computer as a tool to perform the function.” Ans. 6-7. We thus determine that claim 1 as a whole (i.e., including recitations of “displaying the bet matrix through a user interface”) fails to integrate the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Appeal 2021-003718 Application 16/426,379 16 Step 2B - “Inventive Concept” or “Significantly More” The 2019 Guidance further explains that “[i]t is possible that a claim that does not ‘integrate’ a recited judicial exception is nonetheless patent eligible,” for example, because “the claim may recite additional elements that render the claim patent eligible even though a judicial exception is recited in a separate claim element.” See Revised Guidance 56. In other words, “the additional elements recited in the claims provided ‘significantly more’ than the recited judicial exception (e.g., because the additional elements were unconventional in combination).” Id. (emphasis added). The Examiner determines that claim 1 does “not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements to the claims beyond the abstract idea.” Final Act. 3. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in the Step 2B analysis because [n]on-limiting examples of “additional elements” include the creation of a new combined portfolio reconciled to a foundational market, the real-time updating of current odds, creating and updating a comprehensive bet position with the ability to increase or decrease a comprehensive bet position, and the limitations of each of the dependent claims such as the real- time cash value of a combined bet portfolio based on the current odds and status of all associated bets. Appeal Br. 18-19. We agree with the Examiner’s assessment that “the creation of a new combined portfolio” “is part of the abstract idea, so it cannot also be an additional element.” Ans. 7. In other words, the limitations described above fall within the abstract idea discussed by the Examiner, namely, “managing Appeal 2021-003718 Application 16/426,379 17 wagers into groupings.” Final Act. 3. Moreover, Appellant does not argue (and the Specification does not indicate) that a combined portfolio, a foundational market, or real-time updating of data, are elements that are nothing more than those that are well-understood, routine, or conventional. Thus, even when viewing the combination of the claimed elements, or claim 1 as a whole, Appellant is referring to the abstract idea itself, organizing human activity which includes creating a combined portfolio, using a foundational market, or real-time updating of data (see Final Act. 3), rather than focusing on the additional limitations (a “user interface”12) as a basis of arguing the additional elements are not well-understood, routine, or conventional. See Ans. 7. As discussed above, the Specification indicates that a “user interface” is an element that is well-understood, routine and conventional. See Spec. ¶¶ 9, 47, 50. As such, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 does not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claims 8 and 16 Claim 8 recites “wherein the combined bet portfolio is salable according to the real-time single estimated cash value.” Appeal Br. 25 (Claims App.). Claim 16 recites “wherein the bet matrix comprises at least 16 cells.” Id. at 27. In regard to claims 8 and 16, Appellant contends that the Examiner “fail[s] to assess” the limitations of these claims. Appeal Br. 20-21; see also 12 As noted in footnote 11 above, the recited “user interface” of claim 1 can be regarded as an additional limitation for the Step 2B analysis. Appeal 2021-003718 Application 16/426,379 18 Reply Br. 10. Appellant reiterates arguments made with respect to the Examiner’s analysis of Step 2B above. Appeal Br. 20-21; see also Reply Br. 10. Appellant’s contentions are unpersuasive. The Examiner states that “[a]ll dependent claims have been further analyzed, but they too merely provide additional abstract ideas related to certain methods of organizing human activity . . . as explained above and thus do not cure the deficiencies of claims 1 and 12.” Final Act. 3. Thus, the Examiner did not fail to assess the limitations of these claims. Further, for the reasons discussed above, we do not find that the Examiner erred in the analysis of Step 2B. Thus, this argument is not well-taken as Appellant, once again, focuses on the abstract idea, rather than the additional elements of a “user interface.” Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, after applying the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-17 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Appeal 2021-003718 Application 16/426,379 19 CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-5, 7-17 101 Eligibility 1-5, 7-17 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED