DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Applicant's submission filed on 11/06/2025 has been entered. Applicant’s Response amended claims 1, 6 & 12. Claims 7 & 10 were previously canceled. Therefore, claims 1-6, 8, 9 & 11-17 are pending.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 11/06/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of USPN 9,282,307 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9 & 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “generating to the GUI, without accessing a database, a first drop-down menu listing a first set of predetermined items ontologically related”.
Claim 6 has been amended to recite “generating to the GUI, ontologically and without accessing a database, a first drop-down menu of listings”.
Claim 12 has been amended to recite “generating to the GUI, without accessing a database, a first drop-down menu listing a first set of predetermined items ontologically related to a first alphanumeric expression”.
The examiner has reviewed the disclosures and drawings of the provisional and non-provisional applications in this patent family. The specification and drawings do not support the concept of generating GUI drop-down menu elements without accessing a database, either in verbatim of substitute language. In addition to not supporting the concept, there is no instances of text that would support the claim amendment phrased as a negative limitation in this manner.
Further, as set forth in the indefiniteness rejection below, it is unclear how it is possible to generate these ontologically-related predetermined elements for the graphical user interface, without accessing a database, when by definition an ontology requires its relationships to be predetermined and stored somewhere. In other words, how could the GUI elements be both ontology-based but created through not accessing a database where the ontology relationships would be stored in the first place? For the sake of argument, this might be possible, but it is not described in the specification, nor is it clear in the claims.
Claim 12 has been amended to introduce new matter by now reciting several terms that are not found in the specification or drawings, but were previously recited as abbreviations and subject to a §112(b) rejection in the previous Office action. These include points per possession, field-goal percentage, turn-over percentage, pick-and-roll, and Post-Up. All of the elements amended in the last paragraph of claim 7 fall under this rejection.
The remaining claims, not discussed above, are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9 & 11-17 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 has been amended to recite “generating to the GUI, without accessing a database, a first drop-down menu listing a first set of predetermined items ontologically related”.
Claim 6 has been amended to recite “generating to the GUI, ontologically and without accessing a database, a first drop-down menu of listings”.
Claim 12 has been amended to recite “generating to the GUI, without accessing a database, a first drop-down menu listing a first set of predetermined items ontologically related to a first alphanumeric expression”.
It is unclear how it is possible to generate these ontologically-related predetermined elements for the graphical user interface, without accessing a database, when by definition an ontology requires its relationships to be predetermined and stored somewhere. In other words, how could the GUI elements be both ontology-based but created through not accessing a database where the ontology relationships would be stored in the first place? For the sake of argument, this might be possible, but it is not described in the specification, nor is it clear in the claims.
The remaining claims, not discussed above, are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103(a)
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 11-13 & 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over:
Latzina et al. (US 2008/0319947 A1, hereinafter “Latzina”) in view of
Gross et al. (US 2006/0248078 A1, hereinafter “Gross”), in view of
“Philadelphia Eagles – Statistics – NFL – Yahoo! Sports” (published in 2008, hereinafter “Eagles”), in view of
“Philadelphia Eagles – Schedule – NFL – Yahoo! Sports” (published in 2008, hereinafter “Eagles Schedule”), and further in view of
“A Starting Point for Analyzing Basketball Statistics” by Justin Kubatko et al. (published in 2007, hereinafter “Kubatko”).
Regarding claim 1, Latzina teaches
At least one non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions, that when executed by at least one processing device, enable the at least one processing device to perform a method comprising:
generating to a graphical user interface (GUI) a first data-entry field [Latzina, Figure 22 and ¶ 0114, the user enters the first few characters of the search query];
receiving in the first field, from a user of the GUI, at least a portion of a first search term, the at least a portion including a sequence of one or more alphanumeric characters [Latzina, Figure 22 “illustrating possible dynamic behavior manifested by a UI”, and corresponding ¶ 0114, the user enters the first few characters of the search query];
ontologically related [Latzina, ¶¶ 0046 & 0066];
receiving a selection of a first item of the first set of items [Latzina, Figure 23 and ¶¶ 0114 & 0115, selected suggestions “[JAVA IN PRODUCTS]” (reference character 2301)];
generating to the GUI a second data-entry field [Latzina, Figure 23 and ¶¶ 0114 & 0115, selected suggestions “[JAVA IN PRODUCTS]” (reference character 2301)];
receiving in the second field at least a portion of a second search term from the user [Latzina, Figure 23 and ¶ 0115, a partial search query is provided “EXPER” (reference character 2302)];
in response to receiving the portion of the second search term, generating to the GUI a second drop-down menu listing a second set of predetermined items ontologically related to the selected first item [Latzina, Figure 23 and ¶ 0115, a drop down menu is illustrated that contains a field to allow a user to select a further refined search suggestion].
While Latzina teaches ontologically related items, Latzina does not explicitly teach in response to receiving the at least a portion of the first search term, generating to the GUI, without accessing a database, a first drop-down menu listing a first set of predetermined items related to a first alphanumeric expression and not limited to commencing with the sequence of one or more alphanumeric characters.
However, Gross teaches
in response to receiving the at least a portion of the first search term, generating to the GUI, without accessing a database, a first drop-down menu listing a first set of predetermined items related to a first alphanumeric expression and not limited to commencing with the sequence of one or more alphanumeric characters [Gross, ¶¶ 0047-0049].
Latzina and Gross are analogous art because Gross is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the claimed invention relates (i.e., the problem of how to best narrow web searches). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Latzina with Gross in attempting to solve the relevant problem of how to best narrow search queries through the use of real-time suggested keywords that include each user input character that appears anywhere in the suggested keywords.
Latzina and Gross does not explicitly teach receiving the selection of a second item of the second set of items; and in response to receiving a selection of a second item of the second set of items, generating to the display device tables populated with statistics sorted according to multiple types of different plays executed by players of a particular sport and based on the selected first and second items, wherein the players are on a team and each player on the team executing a play is positioned on a playing surface differently from each other player on the team.
However, Eagles teaches
receiving the selection of a second item of the second set of items [Eagles, pages 1 & 3, selected second item may be player Brian Westbrook]; and
in response to receiving a selection of a second item of the second set of items, generating to the display device tables populated with statistics sorted according to multiple types of different plays executed by players of a particular sport and based on the selected first and second items [Eagles, pages 1 & 3, statistics are displayed in table form to a browser window. The statistical data is sorted according to plays as evidenced by values arranged in descending order (e.g., Yds). Eagles teaches displaying different types of plays (e.g., passing, rushing, receiving) and the names of the associated players involved in the displayed play types],
wherein the players are on a team and each player on the team executing a play is positioned on a playing surface differently from each other player on the team [Eagles, pages 1 & 3, the examiner points out that this limitation appears to recite a definitional statement about a particular sport, and not about the data which it is intended to represent. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim element, in light of the specification, it seems apparent that whenever sports players (or any physical object, for that matter) are performing some play on the playing field, that they would necessarily each be “positioned . . . differently from each other player on the team.” In other words, they could not occupy the same position as any other player (or physical object) in that space. Eagles teaches the limitation at page 1, where plays are presented such as passing or kicking, which would involve other teammates who are not involved in passing or kicking the ball in that play].
Latzina, Gross, and Eagles are analogous art because the Eagles reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the claimed invention relates (i.e., the problem of how to best narrow web searches). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Latzina and Gross with the Eagles reference in attempting to solve the relevant problem of how to best narrow search queries through the use of drop-down menus, including a sports-related search query. See also PTAB Decision on Appeal, pages 7-9.
The combination of Latzina, Gross, and Eagles does not explicitly teach the first set of predetermined items includes listings of team location vs. team location by date listings.
However, Eagles Schedule teaches
the first set of predetermined items includes listings of team location vs. team location by date listings [Eagles Schedule, a team can be initially selected such as Philadelphia Eagles. Data on “Scores and Schedule” is available for team location (e.g., Pittsburgh) and date (e.g., Fri, Aug 8). Each team’s full name comprises a location and a given name (e.g., Philadelphia Eagles). Even if only one name component is entered, the record(s) corresponding to that name component query would be retrieved].
Latzina, Gross, Eagles, and Eagles Schedule are analogous art because the Eagles Schedule reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the claimed invention relates (i.e., the problem of how to best narrow web searches). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Latzina, Gross, and Eagles with the Eagles Schedule reference in attempting to solve the relevant problem of how to best search and retrieve schedule data for a sports team, including in solving a sports-related search query problem. See also PTAB Decision on Appeal, pages 8-10.
The combination of Latzina, Gross, Eagles, and Eagles Schedule does not explicitly teach the statistics including the respective percentage of time that the players executed each play of the multiple types of different plays.
However, Kubatko teaches the statistics including the respective percentage of time that the players executed each play of the multiple types of different plays [Kubatko, page 1, describing the basic variables of what is now the mainstream of basketball statistics, including a variety of data sources and the concept of “possessions” plays in basketball; page 2, describing possessions and the different variables involved; and pages 8-9, describing plays, play percentage, and per-minute statistics].
Latzina, Gross, Eagles, Eagles Schedule, and Kubatko are analogous art because the Kubatko reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the claimed invention relates (i.e., sports statistics). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Latzina, Gross, Eagles, and Eagles Schedule with the Kubatko reference in attempting to solve the relevant problem of displaying stored sports statistics.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of a wide variety of possible statistics in the field of quantitative analysis of sports (see Kubatko’s Abstract). There is no functional relationship between the type of statistic that is retrieved and displayed, such that the type of data (e.g., sports statistics) is non-functional descriptive material because the statistics do not alter how the computer processing device functions. Thus, the recited statistics are non-functional descriptive material and do not distinguish the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium from the prior art that is the same except for which specific statistics are included in the database.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Latzina, Gross, Eagles, Eagles Schedule, and Kubatko teaches the medium of claim 1, wherein the second set of items comprises players who played in a game identified by the selected first item [Eagles, page 1, Brian Westbrook and other players].
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Latzina, Gross, Eagles, Eagles Schedule, and Kubatko teaches the medium of claim 1, wherein each player on the team executing a play performs a respective different role in executing the play [Eagles, page 1, when a play is being executed, such as passing or kicking, each player on the team would perform a different role during that play to support them. That is a property of team sports].
Regarding claim 12, Latzina teaches
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions, that when executed by a processing device, enable the processing device to implement a method comprising:
generating to a graphical user interface (GUI) a first data-entry field [Latzina, Figure 22 and ¶ 0114, the user enters the first few characters of the search query];
receiving in the first field, from a user of the GUI, at least a portion of a first search term, the at least a portion including a first sequence of one or more alphanumeric characters [Latzina, Figure 22 “illustrating possible dynamic behavior manifested by a UI”, and corresponding ¶ 0114, the user enters the first few characters of the search query];
ontologically related [Latzina, ¶¶ 0046 & 0066];
receiving a selection of a first item of the first set of items [Latzina, Figure 23 and ¶¶ 0114 & 0115, selected suggestions “[JAVA IN PRODUCTS]” (reference character 2301)];
generating to the GUI a second data-entry field [Latzina, Figure 23 and ¶¶ 0114 & 0115, selected suggestions “[JAVA IN PRODUCTS]” (reference character 2301)];
receiving in the second field at least a portion of a second search term from the user [Latzina, Figure 23 and ¶ 0115, a partial search query is provided “EXPER” (reference character 2302)];
in response to receiving the portion of the second search term, generating to the GUI a second drop-down menu listing a second set of predetermined items ontologically related to the selected first item [Latzina, Figure 23 and ¶ 0115, a drop down menu is illustrated that contains a field to allow a user to select a further refined search suggestion].
While Latzina teaches ontologically related items, Latzina does not explicitly teach in response to receiving the portion of the first search term, generating to the GUI a first drop-down menu listing a first set of predetermined items ontologically related to the alphanumeric expression, at least one of the first set of predetermined items commencing with a second sequence of alphanumeric characters each different than a corresponding one of the alphanumeric characters in the first sequence.
However, Gross teaches
in response to receiving the portion of the first search term, generating to the GUI a first drop-down menu listing a first set of predetermined items ontologically related to the alphanumeric expression, at least one of the first set of predetermined items commencing with a second sequence of alphanumeric characters each different than a corresponding one of the alphanumeric characters in the first sequence [Gross, ¶¶ 0047-0049].
Latzina and Gross are analogous art because Gross is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the claimed invention relates (i.e., the problem of how to best narrow web searches). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Latzina with Gross in attempting to solve the relevant problem of how to best narrow search queries through the use of real-time suggested keywords that include each user input character that appears anywhere in the suggested keywords.
The combination of Latzina and Gross does not explicitly teach receiving the selection of a second item of the second set of items; and in response to receiving a selection of a second item of the second set of items, generating to the display device tables populated with statistics sorted according to multiple types of different plays executed by players of a particular sport and based on the selected first and second items, wherein the players are on a team and wherein each player on the team executing a play performs a respective different role in executing the play.
However, Eagles teaches
receiving the selection of a second item of the second set of items [Eagles, pages 1 & 3, selected second item may be player Brian Westbrook]; and
in response to receiving a selection of a second item of the second set of items, generating to the display device tables populated with statistics sorted according to multiple types of different plays executed by players of a particular sport and based on the selected first and second items [Eagles, pages 1 & 3, statistics are displayed in table form to a browser window. The statistical data is sorted according to plays as evidenced by values arranged in descending order (e.g., Yds). Eagles teaches displaying different types of plays (e.g., passing, rushing, receiving) and the names of the associated players involved in the displayed play types],
wherein the players are on a team and each player on the team executing a play performs a respective different role in executing the play [Eagles, page 1, when a play is being executed, such as passing or kicking, each player on the team would perform a different role during that play to support them. That is a property of team sports], and
wherein each play of the multiple types of different plays comprises associated statistics for each such play, and wherein said associated per play statistics are further categorized into a first category that includes three or more of plays by percentage time, number of plays, points per possession (PPP), rank, field-goal percentage (FG%), and turn-over percentage (TO%); and further sub-categorized by three or more of Total Plays, pick-and-roll (P&R) Ball Handler, Spot-Up, Isolation, Transition, Post-Up, Off Screen, Cut, Hand-Off, pick-and-roll (P & R) Man, Put Backs, and Miscellaneous. [Eagles, pages 1 & 3, statistics are displayed in table form to a browser window. Eagles displays statistics in table form to a browser window, similar to Appellant’s Figure 3. One of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of a wide variety of possible statistics that can be stored and retrieved in a data store on a particular popular topic where statistics are desirable. There is no functional relationship between the type of statistic that is retrieved and displayed, such that the type of data (e.g., sports statistics) is non-functional descriptive material because the statistics do not alter how the computer processing device functions. Thus, the recited statistics are non-functional descriptive material and do not distinguish the claim from the prior art that is the same except for which specific statistics are included in the data store.].
Latzina, Gross, and Eagles are analogous art because the Eagles reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the claimed invention relates (i.e., the problem of how to best narrow web searches). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Latzina and Gross with the Eagles reference in attempting to solve the relevant problem of how to best narrow search queries through the use of drop-down menus, including a sports-related search query. See also PTAB Decision on Appeal, pages 7-9.
The combination of Latzina, Gross, and Eagles does not explicitly teach the first set of predetermined items includes listings of team location vs. team location by date listings.
However, Eagles Schedule teaches
the first set of predetermined items includes listings of team location vs. team location by date listings [Eagles Schedule, a team can be initially selected such as Philadelphia Eagles. Data on “Scores and Schedule” is available for team location (e.g., Pittsburgh) and date (e.g., Fri, Aug 8). Each team’s full name comprises a location and a given name (e.g., Philadelphia Eagles). Even if only one name component is entered, the record(s) corresponding to that name component query would be retrieved].
Latzina, Gross, Eagles, and Eagles Schedule are analogous art because the Eagles Schedule reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the claimed invention relates (i.e., the problem of how to best narrow web searches). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Latzina, Gross, and Eagles with the Eagles Schedule reference in attempting to solve the relevant problem of how to best search and retrieve schedule data for a sports team, including in solving a sports-related search query problem. See generally PTAB Decision on Appeal, pages 8-10.
The combination of Latzina, Gross, Eagles, and Eagles Schedule does not explicitly teach the statistics including the respective percentage of time that the players executed each play of the multiple types of different plays.
However, Kubatko teaches the statistics including the respective percentage of time that the players executed each play of the multiple types of different plays [Kubatko, page 1, describing the basic variables of what is now the mainstream of basketball statistics, including a variety of data sources and the concept of “possessions” plays in basketball; page 2, describing possessions and the different variables involved; and pages 8-9, describing plays, play percentage, and per-minute statistics].
Latzina, Gross, Eagles, Eagles Schedule, and Kubatko are analogous art because the Kubatko reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the claimed invention relates (i.e., sports statistics). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Latzina, Gross, Eagles, and Eagles Schedule with the Kubatko reference in attempting to solve the relevant problem of displaying stored sports statistics.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of a wide variety of possible statistics in the field of quantitative analysis of sports (see Kubatko’s Abstract). There is no functional relationship between the type of statistic that is retrieved and displayed, such that the type of data (e.g., sports statistics) is non-functional descriptive material because the statistics do not alter how the computer processing device functions. Thus, the recited statistics are non-functional descriptive material and do not distinguish the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium from the prior art that is the same except for which specific statistics are included in the database.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Latzina, Gross, Eagles, Eagles Schedule, and Kubatko teaches the medium of claim 12, wherein the second set of items comprises players who played in a game identified by the selected first item [Eagles, page 1, Brian Westbrook and other players].
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Latzina, Gross, Eagles, Eagles Schedule, and Kubatko teaches the medium of claim 12, wherein each player on the team executing a play is positioned on a playing surface differently from each other player on the team [Eagles, pages 1 & 3, the examiner points out that this limitation appears to recite a definitional statement about a particular sport, and not about the data which it is intended to represent. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim element, in light of the specification, it seems apparent that whenever sports players (or any physical object, for that matter) are performing some play on the playing field, that they would necessarily each be “positioned . . . differently from each other player on the team.” In other words, they could not occupy the same position as any other player (or physical object) in that space. Eagles teaches the limitation at page 1, where plays are presented such as passing or kicking, which would involve other teammates who are not involved in passing or kicking the ball in that play].
Claims 3-6, 8, 9 & 14-16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over:
Latzina et al. (US 2008/0319947 A1, hereinafter “Latzina”) in view of
Gross et al. (US 2006/0248078 A1, hereinafter “Gross”), in view of
“Philadelphia Eagles – Statistics – NFL – Yahoo! Sports” (published in 2008, hereinafter “Eagles”), in view of
“Philadelphia Eagles – Schedule – NFL – Yahoo! Sports” (published in 2008, hereinafter “Eagles Schedule”), in view of
“A Starting Point for Analyzing Basketball Statistics” by Justin Kubatko et al. (published in 2007, hereinafter “Kubatko”), and further in view of
LeBeau et al. (US 2011/0191364 A1, hereinafter “LeBeau”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Latzina, Gross, Eagles, Eagles Schedule, and Kubatko teaches the medium of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the first search term comprises an identifier of an athlete.
However, LeBeau teaches wherein the first search term comprises an identifier of an athlete [LeBeau, ¶ 0055, sports player].
Latzina, Gross, Eagles, Eagles Schedule, Kubatko, and LeBeau are analogous art because the Eagles reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the claimed invention relates (i.e., the problem of how to best retrieve relevant and timely web search results). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Latzina, Gross, Eagles, Eagles Schedule, and Kubatko with the LeBeau reference in attempting to solve the relevant problem of how to best retrieve the latest scores or statistics associated with a live query, including a sports-related name query. See LeBeau, ¶ 0002.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Latzina, Gross, Eagles, Eagles Schedule, Kubatko, and LeBeau teaches the medium of claim 3, wherein the second set of items comprises identifiers of games played by the selected athlete [Eagles, page 1, Brian Westbrook’s “G” (for games) and “12”].
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Latzina, Gross, Eagles, Eagles Schedule, Kubatko, and LeBeau teaches the medium of claim 3, wherein the second set of items comprises statistical categories associated with a game of the selected identifier [Eagles, page 3, “Rush”, “Yds”, etc.].
Regarding claim 6, Latzina teaches
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions, that when executed by a processing device, enable the processing device to implement a method, the method comprising:
displaying in a graphical user interface (GUI) on a display device an alphanumeric expression [Latzina, Figure 22 and ¶ 0114, the user enters the first few characters of the search query];
generating to the GUI a first data-entry field [Latzina, Figure 22 and ¶ 0114, the user enters the first few characters of the search query];
receiving in the first field, from a user of the GUI, at least a portion of a first search term, the at least a portion including a sequence of one or more alphanumeric characters [Latzina, Figure 22 “illustrating possible dynamic behavior manifested by a UI”, and corresponding ¶ 0114, the user enters the first few characters of the search query];
ontologically [Latzina, ¶¶ 0046 & 0066];
receiving a selection of a first item of the first set of items [Latzina, Figure 23 and ¶¶ 0114 & 0115, selected suggestions “[JAVA IN PRODUCTS]” (reference character 2301)];
generating to the GUI a second data-entry field [Latzina, Figure 23 and ¶¶ 0114 & 0115, selected suggestions “[JAVA IN PRODUCTS]” (reference character 2301)];
receiving in the second field at least a portion of a second search term from the user [Latzina, Figure 23 and ¶ 0115, a partial search query is provided “EXPER” (reference character 2302)];
in response to receiving the portion of the second search term, generating to the GUI a second drop-down menu listing a second set of predetermined items ontologically related to the selected first item [Latzina, Figure 23 and ¶ 0115, a drop down menu is illustrated that contains a field to allow a user to select a further refined search suggestion].
While Latzina teaches the use of ontologies, Latzina does not explicitly teach in response to receiving the portion of the first search term, generating to the GUI, and without accessing a database, a first drop-down menu related to the alphanumeric expression and at least one of the listings does not commence with the sequence of one or more alphanumeric characters.
However, Gross teaches
in response to receiving the portion of the first search term, generating to the GUI, and without accessing a database, a first drop-down menu related to the alphanumeric expression and at least one of the listings does not commence with the sequence of one or more alphanumeric characters [Gross, ¶¶ 0047-0049].
Latzina and Gross are analogous art because Gross is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the claimed invention relates (i.e., the problem of how to best narrow web searches). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Latzina with Gross in attempting to solve the relevant problem of how to best narrow search queries through the use of real-time suggested keywords that include each user input character that appears anywhere in the suggested keywords.
The combination of Latzina and Gross does not explicitly teach receiving the selection of a second item of the second set of items; and in response to receiving a selection of a second item of the second set of items, generating to the display device a third set of predetermined items comprising tables populated with sports-related statistics ontologically related to the selected first and second items, the statistics sorted according to multiple types of different plays and associated corresponding different play formations executed by players of a particular sport and based on the selected first and second items.
However, Eagles teaches
receiving the selection of a second item of the second set of items [Eagles, pages 1 & 3, selected second item may be player Brian Westbrook]; and
in response to receiving a selection of a second item of the second set of items, generating to the display device a third set of predetermined items comprising tables populated with sports-related statistics ontologically related to the selected first and second items [Eagles, pages 1 & 3, the ontology is in the domain of sports. Here, the user has selected the Eagles as the sports team for the first item. Assuming the selected second item is Brian Westbrook, such as recited in dependent claim 9, then in response to this selection the third set of predetermined items may be any sports-related statistics ontologically related to Brian Westbrook. Page 3 of Eagles readily offers many choices, such as “Last 4 Games”, “Recent Career”, or even “Comparisons” using bar graph and number statistics based on this player],
the statistics sorted according to multiple types of different plays and associated corresponding different play formations executed by players of a particular sport and based on the selected first and second items [Eagles, pages 1 & 3, statistics are displayed in table form to a browser window. Eagles displays statistics in table form to a browser window, similar to Appellant’s Figure 3. The statistical data inside Eagles is sorted according to plays as evidenced by values arranged in descending order (e.g., Yds). Eagles teaches displaying different types of plays (e.g., passing, rushing, receiving) and the names of the associated players involved in the displayed play types. The examiner notes that neither Appellant’s Figure 3, nor the specification of Application No. 16/569,260, discuss specific player formations. Instead, it appears it is to be inferred that to accomplish a particular play, the players are inherently arranged in some way. The examiner notes this element is the first time the concepts of plays, play formations, players, and a sport appear in the claim. Up until this point, the claim recites elements directed to generic data querying through a graphical user interface. The only other indication that the data being acted on is related to a particular topic is “wherein the first search term comprises an identifier of a sports team.” Eagles teaches displaying statistics for a team, such as the Philadelphia Eagles, and a user may filter by a particular season. Eagles, page 1. For individual players who are selected by a user, the last four games and related statistics are displayable. Eagles, page 3.].
Latzina, Gross, and Eagles are analogous art because the Eagles reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the claimed invention relates (i.e., the problem of how to best narrow web searches). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Latzina and Gross with the Eagles reference in attempting to solve the relevant problem of how to best narrow search queries through the use of drop-down menus, including a sports-related search query. See also PTAB Decision on Appeal, pages 7-9.
The combination of Latzina, Gross, and Eagles does not explicitly teach wherein the first search term comprises an identifier of a sports team.
However, LeBeau teaches wherein the first search term comprises an identifier of a sports team [LeBeau, ¶ 0055, name of a sports team].
Latzina, Gross, Eagles, and LeBeau are analogous art because the Eagles reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the claimed invention relates (i.e., the problem of how to best retrieve relevant and timely web search results). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Latzina, Gross, and Eagles with the LeBeau reference in attempting to solve the relevant problem of how to best retrieve the latest scores or statistics associated with a live query, including a sports-related name query. See LeBeau, ¶ 0002.
The combination of Latzina, Gross, Eagles, and LeBeau does not explicitly teach
generating to the GUI a first drop-down menu of listings of team location vs. team location by date listings related to the alphanumeric expression.
However, Eagles Schedule teaches
generating to the GUI a first drop-down menu of listings of team location vs. team location by date listings related to the alphanumeric expression [Eagles Schedule, a team can be initially selected such as Philadelphia Eagles. Data on “Scores and Schedule” is available for team location (e.g., Pittsburgh) and date (e.g., Fri, Aug 8). Each team’s full name comprises a location and a given name (e.g., Philadelphia Eagles). Even if only one name component is entered, the record(s) corresponding to that name component query would be retrieved].
Latzina, Gross, Eagles, LeBeau, and Eagles Schedule are analogous art because the Eagles Schedule reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the claimed invention relates (i.e., the problem of how to best narrow web searches). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Latzina, Gross, Eagles, and LeBeau with the Eagles Schedule reference in attempting to solve the relevant problem of how to best search and retrieve schedule data for a sports team, including in solving a sports-related search query problem. See generally PTAB Decision on Appeal, pages 7-9.
The combination of Latzina, Gross, Eagles, LeBeau, and Eagles Schedule does not explicitly teach the statistics including the respective percentage of time that the players executed each play of the multiple types of different plays.
However, Kubatko teaches the statistics including the respective percentage of time that the players executed each play of the multiple types of different plays [Kubatko, page 1, describing the basic variables of what is now the mainstream of basketball statistics, including a variety of data sources and the concept of “possessions” plays in basketball; page 2, describing possessions and the different variables involved; and pages 8-9, describing plays, play percentage, and per-minute statistics].
Latzina, Gross, Eagles, LeBeau, Eagles Schedule, and Kubatko are analogous art because the Kubatko reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the claimed invention relates (i.e., sports statistics). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Latzina, Gross, Eagles, LeBeau, and Eagles Schedule with the Kubatko reference in attempting to solve the relevant problem of displaying stored sports statistics.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of a wide variety of possible statistics in the field of quantitative analysis of sports (see Kubatko’s Abstract). There is no functional relationship between the type of statistic that is retrieved and displayed, such that the type of data (e.g., sports statistics) is non-functional descriptive material because the statistics do not alter how the computer processing device functions. Thus, the recited statistics are non-functional descriptive material and do not distinguish the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium from the prior art that is the same except for which specific statistics are included in the database.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Latzina, Gross, Eagles, LeBeau, Eagles Schedule, and Kubatko teaches the medium of claim 7, wherein the second set of items comprises identifiers of games played by the sports team [Eagles Schedule, page 1].
Regarding claim 9, the combination Latzina, Gross, Eagles, LeBeau, Eagles Schedule, and Kubatko teaches the medium of claim 7, wherein the second set of items comprises players who played in a game identified by the selected first item [Eagles, page 1, Brian Westbrook and other players].
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Latzina, Gross, Eagles, Eagles Schedule, Kubatko, and LeBeau teaches the medium of claim 12, wherein the first search term comprises an identifier of an athlete [Eagles, pages 1 & 3, Brian Westbrook].
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Latzina, Gross, Eagles, Eagles Schedule, Kubatko, and LeBeau teaches the medium of claim 14, wherein the second set of items comprises identifiers of games played by the selected athlete [Eagles, page 1, Brian Westbrook’s “G” (for games) and “12”].
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Latzina, Gross, Eagles, Eagles Schedule, Kubatko, and LeBeau teaches the medium of claim 14, wherein the second set of items comprises statistical categories associated with a game of the selected identifier [Eagles, page 3, “Rush”, “Yds”, etc.].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the Kubatko reference teaching different statistics are not persuasive. The examiner’s paragraph stating the motivation to combine references, set forth in the previous and current Office actions, notes that
“One of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of a wide variety of possible statistics in the field of quantitative analysis of sports (see Kubatko’s Abstract). There is no functional relationship between the type of statistic that is retrieved and displayed, such that the type of data (e.g., sports statistics) is non-functional descriptive material because the statistics do not alter how the computer processing device functions. Thus, the recited statistics are non-functional descriptive material and do not distinguish the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium from the prior art that is the same except for which specific statistics are included in the database.”
Applicant’s arguments against the Gross reference, cited in the IDS filed 11/06/2025, note that Gross does not mention ontology and suggests keywords by indexing a database.
First, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Second, the primary reference, Latzina, teaches use of ontologies. Gross (US 2006/0248078 A1) is introduced for establishing that the concept of type-ahead predictive search, such that an input character can appear anywhere in the suggested keywords, was well-known in the pertinent art at least two years before Latzina (US 2008/0319947 A1). Predictive search in Gross, also known as autocomplete or autosuggest, is compatible with the teaching by Latzina at paragraph [0114], describing “possible dynamic behavior manifested by a UI” for Latzina’s Figure 22 search interface. It is the combination of references that the rejection is based on.
Applicant’s amendment to the Specification to remove discussion of it being limited to sports is acknowledged. The motivation to combine references statements already set forth their own independent reasoning, but the relevant paragraphs have been clarified to refer to the PTAB decision as an additional rationale. Nevertheless, the claims are directed to sports and sports-related searching, and the decision’s analysis addressed why references can be combined.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott A. Waldron whose telephone number is (571)272-5898. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached at (571)270-0474. 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.
/Scott A. Waldron/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 12/12/2025