DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-19 and 21 are currently presented for examination.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, and in light of the 2019 Patent Eligibility guidance, the 101 rejection of the Claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed to 101 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter."
Examiner’s Response: All arguments are addressed in the 101 rejection of the claims below.
Therefore, the 101 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, the 103 rejection of the claims is Withdrawn.
See Allowability section below.
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.
Regarding claims 1-19 and 21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-7 and 21 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 8-14 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is a manufacture, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 15-19 are directed to a system, which is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-19 and 21 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the abstract idea of simulating a thermal modeling using finite element, constituting an abstract idea based on Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. The limitation of "generating, in real-time, a feature representation of a plurality of model features based on the real-time data feed and historical information associated with one or more teams and/or one or more players associated with the event …;” covers mental processes including making a judgement on how to generate a model after evaluating historical information of teams and players in an event. That is, other than reciting “in a feature generation module associated with the computing system,” nothing in the claim elements preclude the step from practically being performed in the mind. This follows for each instance of by the computing system and feature generation module. The real time aspect of the claims encompasses a person sitting at a sporting event and observing the event. This follows for each instance of “real-time.” Additionally, the limitation of “in response to the transmitting, generating, a plurality of micro predictions in the micro prediction module, wherein the plurality of micro predictions include a win probability, a team proposition, or a player proposition associated with an ongoing match, and wherein the plurality of micro predictions include a prediction associated with the event represented as a two-dimensional probability mass function that includes one or more estimated probabilities of one or more results;” covers mental processes including evaluating an event and making a judgement about an event prediction. That is, other than reciting “in the micro prediction module” nothing in the claim elements preclude the step from practically being performed in the mind. This follows for each instance of by the micro prediction module. Additionally, the limitation of “executing a simulation algorithm in real time… and aggregate the plurality of micro predictions to generate a league standing prediction, a team statistics prediction, or a player statistic”, covers mental processes including evaluating a set of players and a team’s season performance based on their performance during a game and making a judgement of how they will do for the season. Additionally, the limitation of “wherein the executing the simulation algorithm comprises: … sampling a plurality of times from each of the retrieved two-dimensional probability mass functions to generate a plurality of simulated exact score outcomes for each game of the plurality of games;”, covers mental processes including evaluating whether a team will win or lose and what the ending scores could be. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-19 and 21 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Claims 1, 8 and 15, (also recited in dependent claims) the additional elements of “a prediction engine”, “a computing system”, “a feature generation module”, “a micro prediction module”, “a data store”, “a macro prediction module”, and “a data feed” (also recited in dependent claims), “event feed” (also recited in dependent claims), as well as “a feature generation module” in claims 7 and 14 merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitations of “receiving, a real-time data feed associated with real-time sports data for an event that includes an event type, wherein the real-time data feed comprises real-time player data and team data as input data into a prediction engine associated with a computing system;”, “initiating, a request that includes the feature representation by transmitting the feature representation into a micro prediction module of the prediction engine associated with the computing system”, “transmitting, the plurality of micro predictions into a data store associated with the computing system;”, “executing, a simulation algorithm in real-time macro prediction module associated with the prediction engine to retrieve the formatted plurality of micro predictions from the data store as input into the macro prediction module”, “retrieving, from the data store, the two-dimensional probability mass function for each game of a plurality of games during a season that has not yet ended; and” and “storing, based on the generating, the league standing prediction, the team statistics prediction, or the player statistic into the data store” in claims 1, 8 and 15, as well as “combining, by the computing system, the real-time sports data with advanced sports data from an additional data feed” and in claims 2, 9 and 16, as well as “generating, by the computing system, one or more hypertext transfer protocol requests to the endpoint to generate the micro predictions” in claims 5, 12 and 19 are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) The limitation of “wherein the real-time data feed includes at least one of: an in-venue tracking feed, a broadcast tracking live feed, a market data feed, and a wearable data feed” in claims 6 and 13 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h) Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-19 and 21 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B: Claims 1, 8 and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In Claims 1, 8 and 15, (also recited in dependent claims) the additional elements of “a prediction engine”, “a computing system”, “a feature generation module”, “a micro prediction module”, “a data store”, “a macro prediction module”, and “a data feed” (also recited in dependent claims), “event feed” (also recited in dependent claims), as well as “a feature generation module” in claims 7 and 14 merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitations of “receiving, a real-time data feed associated with real-time sports data for an event that includes an event type, wherein the real-time data feed comprises real-time player data and team data as input data into a prediction engine associated with a computing system;”, “initiating, a request that includes the feature representation by transmitting the feature representation into a micro prediction module of the prediction engine associated with the computing system”, “transmitting, the plurality of micro predictions into a data store associated with the computing system;”, “executing, a simulation algorithm in real-time macro prediction module associated with the prediction engine to retrieve the formatted plurality of micro predictions from the data store as input into the macro prediction module”, “retrieving, from the data store, the two-dimensional probability mass function for each game of a plurality of games during a season that has not yet ended; and” and “storing, based on the generating, the league standing prediction, the team statistics prediction, or the player statistic into the data store” in claims 1, 8 and 15, as well as “combining, by the computing system, the real-time sports data with advanced sports data from an additional data feed” and in claims 2, 9 and 16, as well as “generating, by the computing system, one or more hypertext transfer protocol requests to the endpoint to generate the micro predictions” in claims 5, 12 and 19 are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) The limitation of “wherein the real-time data feed includes at least one of: an in-venue tracking feed, a broadcast tracking live feed, a market data feed, and a wearable data feed” in claims 6 and 13 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h) Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claims 2, 9 and 16 are directed to combining sports data, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 3, 10 and 17 are directed to grouping model features, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 4, 11 and 18 are directed to generating game team features, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 7 and 14 are directed to detecting a trigger event and generating model features based on the data, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 21 is directed to formatting the input for the simulation, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Accordingly, claims 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
The closest prior art references of record are Krieger, Forouhar and Hung. These references alone or in combination do not disclose the limitations including using a two-dimensional probability mass function to generate a plurality of simulated exact scores, in combination with the remaining limitations. Therefore, claims 1-19 and 21 as drafted, are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the prior art of the record and the available field of prior art. The claims would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 101 rejection of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Teller et al. USPPN 2010/0179930: Also teaches the calculation of a game outcome in the form of win or loss, where the score probability is taken into account.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at 571-272-4071. 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.
/MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
