DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the claim amendment filed 10/15/2025. Claims 1-26 are pending with claim 18 currently being amended.
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 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 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. As summarized in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions.
Step 1
In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. Claims 1-9 encompass a “method programmed in a non-transitory memory of a device.” As such, it is not clear whether claims 1-9 are directed to a method (e.g., a process) or an article of manufacture (e.g., a programmed memory device). The instant invention further encompasses a device in claims 10-17 (a machine) and a network of devices in claims 18-26 (machines), which are clearly directed to one of the four statutory categories and meet the requirements of step 1.
Step 2A
Prong One
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significant more. The instant invention is broadly directed to “methods and systems for implementing a separate and combined contest for participants competing both in a daily fantasy event and a separate contest played in real-time on a web-connected device while viewing a live sporting event or other events” (Page 1). Claim 1 recites the following (with emphasis added):
Claim 1: A method programmed in a non-transitory memory of a device, the method comprising:
providing a real-time competition, wherein the real-time competition comprises a plurality of real-time selections;
providing a non-real-time competition, wherein the non-real-time competition comprises a plurality of non-real-time selections, wherein the real-time competition and the non-real-time competition are distinct but related to a same one or more events; and
scoring a separate competition for participants based on results of the real-time competition and the non-real-time competition, including combining scores from each of the real-time competition and the non-real-time competition to determine winners of the separate competition, wherein the participants participate in the same real-time competition, the same non-real-time competition and the same separate competition, wherein the real-time competition is provided on a real-time server which is optimized to implement the real-time competition, wherein the real-time server is optimized by transferring information related to a selected competition to a local storage for faster access.
The bold and underlined portions of claim 1 encompass the abstract idea, which is also encompassed by the dependent claims 2-9, and substantially also encompassed by claims 10-17, and claims 18-26.
Claims 1, 10, and 18 recite the information and steps for conducting a separate competition, which is based on both a real-time competition and a non-real-time competition. The recited information and steps tell the player how to participate in a real-time competition, how to participate in a non-real-time competition, and how to participate in a separate competition so that the player can follow the instructions to participate in a separate competition which combines the scores from the real-time competition and the non- real-time competition. These limitations, when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, are directed to mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes.
Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because mere instruction to implement on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment for field of use is not considered integration into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the present claims include the additional elements other than the abstract idea which include a device/devices comprising a non-transitory memory and a processor, and a real-time server communicating over networks. Without any detail on the device/devices and networks, they are directed to the conventional computers over generic network as presented. The claim is drafted in a result-oriented fashion, without the requisite specificity needed to provide a nonabstract technological solution. It is “"well-understood, routine, conventional activity" to use local cache for data storage for faster data access. The claim merely recites a server that uses “a local storage for faster access” without providing any technological improvement. These additional elements are directed to the components of a system amount to merely field of use type limitations and/or extra solution activity to implement the abstract idea as presented.
Step 2B
Step 2B in the analysis requires us to determine whether the claims do significantly more than simply describe that abstract method. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297. We must examine the limitations of the claims to determine whether the claims contain an "inventive concept" to "transform" the claimed abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 1298). The transformation of an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter "requires 'more than simply stat[ing] the [abstract idea] while adding the words 'apply it."' Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294) (alterations in original). "A claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features' to ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].'" Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297) (alterations in original). Those "additional features" must be more than "well-understood, routine, conventional activity." Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298.
The present claims include the additional elements other than the abstract idea which include a device comprising a non-transitory memory, a processor and a real-time server. Claim 23 provides a list of possible devices that can be used to perform the competition: a mobile phone, a laptop, a personal computer, a smart television or a video game console. These additional elements are merely used for insignificant extra-solution activity, in which only the non-transitory memory, the processor, the real-time server and the ability to connect to internet of these devices are related to implementing the competition rule. Use of a machine or apparatus that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would weigh against eligibility. See Bilski, 138 S. Ct. at 3230 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, ___ (1978)), and Cybersource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 99 USPQ2d 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Thus the present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims are generally linked to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. When looked at individually and as a whole, the claim limitations are determined to be an abstract idea without "significantly more," and thus not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the claim rejections of claims 1-26 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant first cited Ex Parte Guillaume Desjardins to argue that claim 1 and amended claim 18 with limitation “wherein the real-time server is configured for addressing one or more latency issues” are allowable. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully submits that Ex Parte Guillaume Desjardins is directed to AI innovations and is distinguishable from the particular facts of the instant invention. Current claims are drafted in a result-oriented fashion, without the requisite specificity needed to provide a nonabstract technological solution. There are no technology details on how the “one or more latency issues” are being addressed. And the so called “optimized real-time server” is simply achieved by applying the rules to save data from different time period to different storages, without any technology improvement.
Applicant further presented several previous examples to argue “The presently claimed invention similarly allows a user to more efficiently and accurately participate in multiple competitions,” “the presently claimed invention does not preempt the entire field of wagering or fantasy football. The presently claimed invention merely covers a specific implementation of a combination of real-time competition and a non-real-time competition,” “The presently claimed invention solves a similar problem providing massive amounts of data from vast numbers of people from all over the world in real-time and non-real-time for competitions” or “As described above, the presently claimed invention is sufficiently specific as to not preempt an entire field. These limitations include significantly more than the abstract idea and cannot be implemented without a computing device, thus are not abstract” (p. 9-10). The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully submits that there is no technology detail/improvement on how to achieve “allows a user to more efficiently and accurately participate in multiple competitions.” It is by rules that a user can participate in multiple competitions, which is an abstract idea. The examiner also respectfully submits that merely using computer system to handle massive amounts of data, or use computer system to process a combined order of specific rules, are amount to merely field of use type limitations and/or extra solution activity to implement the abstract idea. As analyzed above, the current claims are directed to abstract ideas and is not integrated into a practical application because mere instruction to implement on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment for field of use is not considered integration into a practical application. The claim is drafted in a result-oriented fashion, without the requisite specificity needed to provide a nonabstract technological solution. It is “"well-understood, routine, conventional activity" to use local cache for data storage for faster data access. The claim merely recites a server that uses “a local storage for faster access” without providing any technological improvement. These additional elements are directed to the components of a system amount to merely field of use type limitations and/or extra solution activity to implement the abstract idea as presented.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 YINGCHUAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1375. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 4:30 M-F.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/YINGCHUAN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights