DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-12 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 7, and 9 have been currently amended and no new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative traverses the rejection under 35 USC 101 because they are directed to patent-eligible subject matter as they solve a specific technical problem through a concrete technical implementation that goes well beyond merely organizing human activity (see Remarks, pg. 9). Specifically, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims recite i) technical problem and solution; ii) specific technical operations on video data; iii) real-time score aggregation across disparate video segments; and iv) distinction from abstract game management which integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2 (see Remarks, pg. 9-11). The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons provided below.
The Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims provide a technical problem and solution. Specifically, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims recites the system to “communicate[s] with the randomizer to randomly select multiple of the selected increments from different historical sports games” and “assemble[s] the randomly selected increments from the different historical sports games to create a first set of plurality of new composite sports games with unpredictable outcomes” that solves the technical problem of generating unpredictable sports content from deterministic historical data through a specific technical implementation (see Remarks, pg. 9). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously asserted in the Non-Final Rejections (dated 5/15/24) and the Final Rejection (12/2/24), the claimed invention at best is directed to an improved abstract idea. But an improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea. In order to be a (patent-eligible) technical improvement, the invention must provide a “technical solution to a technical problem”. As previously discussed, the instantly claimed invention address the problem to entertain people by allowing them to wager on sports when they are outcome of the sport’s season (e.g., historical (retro) fantasy sports) (see Specification, 0002-0003). This is clearly not a “problem arising from computers” but rather directed to an abstract idea such as managing a fantasy sports game which is a certain method of organizing human activity. For instance, providing a fantasy sports league based on historical sport games, even when limited to selected video increments from different historical sports games is still managing a fantasy sports league which is analogous to a certain method of organizing human activity. For at least this reason, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive that by managing a historical fantasy sport league a technical solution to a technical problem was solved. Additionally, the use of a randomizer to make random selections for selecting videos for the historical sports game is analogous to a rule and/or instruction for managing the retro sport game and has been construed as part of the abstract idea itself. Moreover, randomizing selections, such as by use of a random number generator, to select entries from a list is conventional technique known to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts. Similarly, choosing what sort of data to put on a list is something that humans can do. As such, in the instant application, the randomizer to make selections is not a newly invented random number generator nor is choosing the data to put on a list any more than something that humans can do by merely using a computer as a tool/aid to implement the abstract idea. It follows that these additional elements do not form a technical solution to a technical problem but amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea onto a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). For at least these reason, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the claims are not found to recite a technical problem and solution.
With respect to specific technical operations on video data, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claimed limitation requires a system to partition “video of historical sports games partitioned into system selected increments” and then “randomly select multiple of the selected increments from the different historical sports games to create a first set of plurality of new composite sports games” which provides a technical process of “partitioning video data, randomly selecting non-contiguous video segments from different historical games, and assembling them into new composite games” (see Remarks, pg. 9). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed limitations directed to partitioning data into system selected increments are directed to pre-solution activity and/or data gathering as opposed to a specific technical operation. Specifically, the limitations of the claim directed to “video of historical sports games partitioned into system selected increments” and “randomly select multiple of the selected increments…to create a first set of a plurality of new composite sports games” recite only the a desired result, which amounts to an idea of a solution or outcome, but fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Moreover, the claim invoke only a highly-generalized computer server and/or retro sports system in order to implement the steps to manage a retro fantasy sports league contest which amounts to managing a social activity which analogous to a certain method of organizing human activity. It follows that this is insufficient to indicate a specific technical operation that would integrate the claim into a practical application but amounts to applying a commonplace business method (e.g., a fantasy sports league contest) being applied on a general purpose computer that amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
With respect to “Real-Time Score Aggregation Across Disparate Video Segments”, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claim recite a technical limitation that “the score of the teams from the previous increment is dynamically calculated in real-time by aggregating scores across the different historical sports games and automatically updated as scoring occurs during the current streaming selected increment” which transforms how video content is synchronized and presented. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Scorekeeping is a result of implementing rules and/or instructions of a fantasy sports league which has been construed as being part of the abstract idea itself and/or insignificant extra solution activity for managing the fantasy sport league contest. Moreover, the claims only recite the intended idea of the solution or outcome without the details of how the solution to aggregating scores in real-time is accomplished. Furthermore, the claims only recites that these limitations are achieved by invoking “a retro fantasy sports system” as a tool to perform the process of real-time aggregate scoring which does not integrate the claim into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection has been maintained below.
Finally, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims are distinct from abstract game management because they claims recite specific technical operations of processing “video data: partitioning historical sports game video into increments, randomly selecting increments from different historical games, assembling these disparate segments into new composite games, and dynamically aggregating scores across the different video segments in real-time” (see Remarks, pg. 10-12). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The instantly claimed invention is directed to implementing a fantasy sports game. As previously noted, the claims recite a desired result to form a fantasy sports game by generating an different intervals of video from historical sport games by partitioning historical sports game video into increments and randomly selecting intervals. However, it is conventional for sporting events to be split up into a intervals (e.g., innings in baseball, quarters in football/basketball, half in soccer matches). It follows that partitioning sports games into intervals is inherent in any sport games. With respect to randomly selecting increments and assembling the disparate segments into new composite games, and dynamically aggregating scoring, randomly selecting increments of the historical sports game into intervals is mere data gathering and/or pre-solution activity to manage the retro fantasy sports game and/or mere instructions to apply the exception and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea. The only difference in the content of the instant claims as opposed to a conventional fantasy sports game is with the data being used, which does not transform the abstract idea into significantly more than the fantasy sport game itself. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive the steps of “processed, assembled, and presented” when viewed individually and/or as combination amount to mere instructions to apply the exception by invoking a computer as a tool, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). It follows that the claims, including the additional limitations, do not integrate the claim into a practical application and/or amount to significantly more. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection has been maintained 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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, recites a method of managing a game. This is analogous to grouping of abstract ideas such as a method of managing relationships or interactions between people for a social activity. Thus, the claims are drawn to a method of organizing human activity including rules and instructions. For instance, the following limitations as underlined below are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas:
1. A retro fantasy sports system comprising: a server having a memory storing historical sports games information, including video of historical sports games partitioned into system selected increments, wherein the video of historical games comprise actual past sports games;
a randomizer coupled to the server; and
plurality of user computing devices coupled to the server, wherein the server is programmed to:
receive and process a signal from each of the plurality of user computing devices when each has accessed the system and seeking to engage in a retro fantasy sports league;
create and deliver for display on each of the plurality of user computing devices the retro fantasy sports league input for selection on the plurality of user computing devices, wherein the retro fantasy sports league input includes a sports type with a historical time frame; -certain method of organizing human activity
receive and process a signal from each of the plurality of user computing devices including selection of the retro fantasy sports league input and determine whether each of the plurality of user computing devices include the same retro fantasy sports league input and form the retro fantasy sports league including users of each of the plurality of user computing devices, wherein the retro fantasy sports league includes an amount of time the retro fantasy sports league will endure; - certain method of organizing human activity;
create and deliver for display on each of the plurality of user computing devices retro fantasy sports league contest items for selection on a contest interface using an input item on the plurality of user computing devices, wherein the retro fantasy sports league input corresponds to the retro fantasy sports league contest items; -certain method of organizing human activity;
receive the retro fantasy sports league contest items from each of the plurality of user computing devices and communicate with the randomizer to randomly select multiple of the selected increments from different historical sports games from the historical sports games information that match the retro fantasy sports league input, including actual past teams playing within the predetermined historical time frame, and assemble the randomly selected increments from the different historical sports games to create a first set of plurality of new composite sports games with unpredictable outcomes between the teams corresponding to the retro fantasy sports league input from the selected increments of the different historical sports games from the historical sports games information stored on the server; -certain method of organizing human activity;
execute artificial intelligence learning algorithms to automate odds making related to the first set of plurality of new composite sports games;
stream each of the selected increments of one or more of the first set of the plurality of new composite sports games to each user computing device or to a non-user computing device designated by each of the plurality of user computing devices, wherein streaming each of the selected increments includes streaming video of the selected increments from the different historical sports games;
stream a score of one or more of the first set of the plurality of new composite sports games during each selected increment of the of one or more of the first set of the plurality of new composite sports games, wherein the score of the teams from the previous increment is dynamically calculated in real-time by aggregating scores across the different historical sports games and automatically updated as scoring occurs during the currently streaming selected increment and displayed on the plurality of user computing device to display the aggregated score of the of one or more of the first set of the plurality of new composite sports games; and
determine whether the selected retro fantasy sports league contest items are correct for each user computing device. -certain method of organizing human activity.
The claims are found to recite a certain method of organizing human activity under Step 2A-prong 1 because of the limitations as indicated above.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
(a) It does not improve the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field;
(b) Applying the judicial exception does not effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
(c) Do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine;
(d) It does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing;
(e) It does not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the exception to a particular technological environment such that the claims as a whole are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claims does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed server, network, display, and user computing devices (along with all of their components) are generic as shown in the following paragraphs from Applicant’s specification:
[0037] Embodiments of the present invention relate to a retro sports system for creating new sporting events with new outcomes utilizing increments of past sporting events that can be used for sports gaming and/or other sports games. Modern technology utilized by the system operates as a retro sports system. The system may include the use of a mobile application operating on a user computing device that may be a mobile computing device like a smartphone, a tablet, a wearable, and the like; and/or the system may operate on any type of computing device, including a TV as a downloadable application or even as a web application.
[0038] FIG. 1 depicts an embodiment of a retro sports system 10. The system 10 may include user computing devices 12 and a computer server 14, wherein each user computing device 12 is coupled to the computer server 14. This coupling may be a network connection, such as a wireless connection through an Internet connection, a Wi-Fi connection, a Bluetooth connection, or the like, wherein the user computing devices 12 may communicate with and receive communication from the server 14. The user computing device 12 may be any of a desktop computer, a laptop, a tablet, a smartphone, a wearable device, and the like. The server 14, in some embodiments, may be a computer server or a cloud-based infrastructure architecture.
The claims recite a randomizer, which is not described in any detail in the specification. It appears to be a software module since the specification refers to a “randomizer module” in several places. Be that as it may, random number generators are conventional in the art. See Chen et al. (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2006/0116208), ¶ 0005, which describes random number generators as part of a typical (i.e., conventional) gaming machine.
Applicant’s claimed invention is a series of conventional data-processing steps carried out on generic computer hardware. In this, it is akin to the invention in Electric Power Group, LLC. v. Alstom S.A., (2015-1778) (Fed Cir. 2016). In this precedential case, the court said:
In Enfish, we applied the distinction to reject the § 101 challenge at stage one because the claims at issue focused not on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put, but on a specific improvement—a particular database technique—in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36; see Bascom, 2016 WL 3514158, at *5; cf. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (noting basic storage function of generic computer). The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. (Emphasis added.)
Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information. That is so even as to the claim requirement of “displaying concurrent visualization” of two or more types of information, ’710 patent, col. 31, line 37, even if understood to require time-synchronized display: nothing in the patent contains any suggestion that the displays needed for that purpose are anything but readily available. We have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are “insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application” of an abstract idea. buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1353, 1355; see, e.g., Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1348–49; Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347–48. (Emphasis Added.)
As noted above, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea. A generic computer (i.e., a server) stores video clips. When user devices (generic computers) connect to the server over a generic network (i.e., the internet), the server creates a fantasy sports league game. The server gathers data from the user devices concerning the sport and time period. The server groups the players wishing to play a particular fantasy sport in a particular historical time frame to form a fantasy sports league. The server also determines the amount of time the length of time the league will endure. The server creates a number of fantasy sports items (i.e., fantasy sports games) that are sent to the user devices for selection. The players select the fantasy sports item they wish to see, and the server randomly selects video clips that meet certain criteria. These video clips are streamed (over the generic network) to the user device or non-user device (i.e., another generic computer or display device). The server updates and streams the score of the game as it takes place. And the server determines whether the contest items are correct for each user device.
Applicant has added that streaming each of the selected increments includes streaming video of the selected increments of the historical sports games. This merely specifies the type of data being streamed. Data is, by its very nature, abstract. Specifying the type of data being processed will not overcome the rejection under §101.
Applicant has further added to “execute artificial intelligence learning algorithms to automate odds making related to the first set of plurality of new composite sports games”. A review of the Specification indicates the generic nature of the artificial intelligence learning algorithms as performing the pre-computer solution of a sportsbook and odds making that was previously performed by mathematicians and statisticians. The recitation to execute the algorithm by the system recites the generic process as they amount to invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. The Examiner notes that improvements directed o increased processing and processing efficiency by invoking a computer as a tool is similar to other cases such as Alice v. CLS which does not integrate the claim into a practical application and/or provide an inventive concept. The generic nature of the claimed algorithm is supported by the recited portions of the Specification, as shown below:
[0044] FIG. 3 depicts the betting lines available for the game and the odds. For general understanding provided by this disclosure, it is important to understand certain information involved in gaming. Odds making is an important aspect of gaming that has not changed over the years, wherein the ultimate goal set by the sportsbooks is to balance the action on both sides of a wager/game. In prior days, the odds were set by humans, and as time has progressed, the setting of odds has evolved into the use of computing power along with human input. Understanding bettor behavior, mathematically managing risk, and determining the public’s reaction to specific lines, all play equally large parts in the creation of odds. Computers have the ability to process more data than humans, and oddsmakers use this to their advantage to synthesize the insight of mathematicians and statisticians, making the process more quantifiable and much more precise. Odds making is predicted to eventually be automated with artificial intelligence learning algorithms reducing the human element. This gives way to further development of embodiments of this retro gaming system.
The dependent claims merely add steps to the game. They do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea.
As can readily be seen, the claims are drawn to the steps of setting up and managing a game. This is a method of managing relationships or interactions between people for a social activity. The focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.
As for the rest of the claimed invention, Applicant cannot argue that he has invented any of these components. The courts have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are “insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application” of an abstract idea.
In short, Applicant’s invention is the abstract idea. This abstract idea does not solve any technical problem. It does not improve the capabilities of computers or networks as tools. Instead, it merely uses generic computers and networks as tools to implement the abstract idea. As such, the claims are not eligible under §101.
Currently, implementation of an abstract idea on generic computers is not patent-eligible without “significantly more.” Neither the abstract idea itself nor parts of the abstract idea can supply “significantly more” than the abstract idea. As written, current claims are drawn to an abstract idea with essentially the words “implement it” on a generic computer appended thereto. As such, the claims are not patent-eligible.
A thorough analysis or each and every limitation of each and every claim, both individually and as a part of an ordered combination shows that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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. In particular, independent Claims 1 and 7, recite the limitation “assemble the randomly selected increments from the different historical sports games to create a first set of plurality of new composite sports games with unpredictable outcomes” and “execute artificial intelligence learning algorithms to automate odds making related to the first set of the plurality of new composite sports games” is not adequately described in the Specification. Specifically, a “plurality of new composite sports game with unpredictable outcomes” is not adequately described in the Specification. At best, the Specification discloses assembling video of historical sports games from the historical sports game information stored on the server, but the video of historical sports games have determined outcomes/results such as prior played events and statistics that occur during each interval (e.g., inning, period, quarter) which are already known outcomes. Therefore, the outcomes of the sports games cannot unpredictable. It follows that the Specification does not have adequate support for the subject matter as claimed. Furthermore, the Specification does not disclose and/or teach the artificial intelligence learning algorithm to adequately describe to one of ordinary skill in the art how the inventor intended for the “odds making related to the first set of the plurality of new composite sports games” is performed to show possession in order to satisfy the written description requirement. Dependent Claims 2-6 and 8-20 are dependent and incorporate the limitations of independent Claims 1 and 7 discussed above. For at least these reasons, the claims 1-20 are not found to satisfy the written description requirement.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00-6:00 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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/RYAN HSU/EXAMINER, Art Unit 3715