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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Following Applicants amendments, the 112F interpretation of the claims is Withdrawn.
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.
Applicant’s Argument: The office action did not provide sufficient evidence regarding “well-understood, routine, conventional elements.”
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees as the Examiner did not rely on MPEP 2106.05(d) as a basis for classifying any of the additional elements. Also the elements identified as insignificant extra solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g), have been properly analogized to court cases in the MPEP.
Therefore, the 101 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, the 102 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed the 102 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter.
Examiner’s Response: All arguments are addressed in the 102 rejection of the claims below.
Therefore, the 102 rejection is Maintained.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, the 103 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed the 103 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter.
Examiner’s Response: All arguments are addressed in the 103 rejection of the claims below.
Therefore, the 103 rejection is Maintained.
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, by the computing system, 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 in 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 “by the computing system,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This follows for each instance of by the computing system. 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 “initiating, by the computing system, a request that includes the feature representation in real-time to an endpoint that corresponds to a prediction model;” covers mental processes including sitting at a sporting event and observing it until the end of the game. Additionally, the limitation of “in response to the initiating, receiving, by the computing system, micro predictions from the prediction model in real-time, wherein the micro predictions include a win probability, a team proposition, or a player proposition;” covers mental processes including evaluating an event and making a judgement about an event prediction. Additionally, the limitation of “formatting, by the computing system, the micro predictions based on the event type for input into a simulation algorithm;” covers mental processes including using the statistics in a way that is particular to the sport, and simulating. Additionally, the limitation of “executing, by the computing system, the simulation algorithm in real-time to aggregate the formatted 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. 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, the additional elements of “a computing system” (also recited in dependent claims), 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, by a computing system, 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;”, and “storing, by the computing system, the league standing prediction, the team statistics prediction, or the player statistic in a 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, 13 and 20 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, the additional elements of “a computing system” (also recited in dependent claims), 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, by a computing system, 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;”, and “storing, by the computing system, the league standing prediction, the team statistics prediction, or the player statistic in a 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, 13 and 20 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.”
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-15, 17-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Krieger et al USPPN 2008/0281444.
Regarding claim 1, Krieger anticipates receiving, by a computing system, 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; ([0003], [0004], [0050], data feeds for live games received by the system; [0044], [0050], the system gets player and team information from both the fantasy league and from the live feed as it is played; [0027], [0043] the data collected is from real-time data feeds; [0003], [0021], [0023], [0030], the data is formatted to the event type, for instance football)
generating, by the computing system, 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 in the event; (Figures 3 and 4, [0028], [0032], [0044], [0048], using the model that contains different modules, with the live feed and historical information, projections about the players and teams can be made; [0027], [0043] the data collected is from real-time data feeds)
initiating, by the computing system, a request that includes the feature representation in real-time to an endpoint that corresponds to a prediction model; (Figure 4, [0030], the user requests a specific sport; Figure 2, [0026]-[0027], real-time data is received until the end of the process)
in response to the initiating, receiving, by the computing system, micro predictions from the prediction model in real-time, wherein the micro predictions include a win probability, a team proposition, or a player proposition; (Figures 3 and 4, [0042]-[0048], [0053], [0055], the prediction for a teams win can be done at the end of a particular game, based on both player and team performance)
formatting, by the computing system, the micro predictions based on the event type for input into a simulation algorithm; [0003], [0021], [0023], [0030], the data is formatted to the event type, for instance football; [0021], [0032], [0037], [0056], this includes points (touchdowns), distances and baseball home runs)
executing, by the computing system, the simulation algorithm in real-time to aggregate the formatted micro predictions to generate a league standing prediction, a team statistics prediction, or a player statistic; ([0055] the components of the players and teams are summed to generate points predictions)
storing, by the computing system, the league standing prediction, the team statistics prediction, or the player statistic in a data store. (Figure 1, [0021], all data from the system is stored)
Regarding claim 3, Krieger anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Krieger also anticipates further comprising: grouping, by the computing system, the plurality of model features into a plurality of sets based on a corresponding prediction type and a context for each of the plurality of model features. ([0048], [0053] al of the sports are grouped and all other data is partitioned)
Regarding claim 4, Krieger anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Krieger also anticipates wherein the plurality of model features includes one or more pre-game team features, one or more in-game features, one or more player usage features, one or more pre-game player features, or one or more in-game player features ([0048] all of the sports have pre-season picks; [0042] this includes player and team statistics)
Regarding claim 5, Krieger anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Krieger also anticipates wherein initiating the request that includes the feature representation in real-time to the endpoint that corresponds to the prediction model includes: generating, by the computing system, one or more hypertext transfer protocol requests to the endpoint to generate the micro predictions. (Figure 4, [0030]-[0034], [0040], a user logs into a website to request the predictions; Figure 2, [0026]-[0027] real-time data is received until the end of the process)
Regarding claim 7, Krieger anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Krieger also anticipates wherein generating, by the computing system, the plurality of model features based on the real-time data feed and the historical information associated with the one or more teams and/or the one or more players in the event includes: analyzing, by the computing system, the real-time data feed to detect at least one trigger event, wherein the at least one trigger event includes at least one scored goal event, at least one shot event, at least one corner kick event, at least one substitution event, at least one red card event, at least one yellow card event, or at least one time interval event; and ([0043]-[0049] a selected times, data is captured from the real time data feed)
based on the detecting the at least one trigger event, triggering, by the computing system, a feature generation software module to generate the plurality of model features based on the real-time data feed. ([0027] in response to a player missing a game (trigger event) the system updates projections using real time league information from hosting sites)
In regards to claim 8, it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1.
Examiner’s Note: The additional computer readable medium is taught in [0009].
In regards to claim 10, it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claim 3 with similar limitations to claim 3, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 3.
In regards to claim 11, it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claim 4 with similar limitations to claim 4, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 4.
In regards to claim 12, it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claim 5 with similar limitations to claim 5, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 5.
In regards to claim 14, it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claim 7 with similar limitations to claim 7, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 7.
In regards to claim 15, it is the system embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1.
In regards to claim 17, it is the system embodiment of claim 3 with similar limitations to claim 3, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 3.
In regards to claim 18, it is the system embodiment of claim 4 with similar limitations to claim 4, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 4.
In regards to claim 19, it is the system embodiment of claim 5 with similar limitations to claim 5, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 5.
Regarding claim 21, Krieger anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Krieger also anticipates wherein the formatting the micro predictions based on the event type for input into the simulation algorithm includes formatting a schedule or a structure of the micro predictions based on the event type. ([0021], [0023], [0040] the season (schedule), and the statistics for a particular game (structure) or ball park (structure) are used in the format)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 6, 9, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krieger in view of Hung et al “Event Detection of Broadcast Baseball Videos.”
Regarding claim 2, Krieger anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Krieger does not explicitly teach combining, by the computing system, the real-time sports data with advanced sports data from an additional data feed.
Hung teaches, combining, by the computing system, the real-time sports data with advanced sports data from an additional data feed. (Figures 1, 4-7 the number of runs scored, as well as number of outs, pitch count and speed of the pitch are shown on the score boards)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Krieger with Hung as the references deal with sports predictions, in order to implement a system that combines real time data with an additional feed. Hung would modify Krieger by combining real time data with an additional feed. The benefit of doing so is more information is provided to the user, as well as simulation results can report significant baseball events with 95% of precision rate and 92%. (Hung Abstract)
Regarding claim 6, Krieger anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Krieger does not explicitly teach 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.
Hung teaches, 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. (Figures 4 and 7-10 the number of runs scored, as well as number of outs, pitch count and speed of the pitch are shown on the score boards in the venue and broadcasted)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Krieger with Hung as the references deal with sports predictions, in order to implement a system that includes an in-venue and broadcasted data feed. Hung would modify Krieger by including an in-venue and broadcasted data feed. The benefit of doing so is more information is provided to the user, as well as simulation results can report significant baseball events with 95% of precision rate and 92%. (Hung Abstract)
In regards to claim 9, it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claim 2 with similar limitations to claim 2, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 2.
In regards to claim 13, it is the system embodiment of claim 6 with similar limitations to claim 6, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 6.
In regards to claim 16, it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claim 2 with similar limitations to claim 2, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liegey USPPN 2002/0107590: Also teaches predicting the performance of players and teams in events and during the season.
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