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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea because they now recite specific technical implementation details (a plurality of nodes corresponding to players, teams, and a game state; passing information between the plurality of nodes to update node states; generating simultaneous predictions for at least a subset of the plurality of nodes based on the updated node states; and normalizing player-level predictions based on corresponding team-level predictions) that “could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human’s mind,” citing CyberSource and the 2019 PEG. Applicant further contends that the normalization step is a specific technical process that ensures consistency between hierarchical prediction levels and that the overall combination integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2.
The examiner respectfully disagree. The newly added language describing the transformer-based neural network as comprising “a plurality of nodes corresponding to players, teams, and a game state,” “passing information between the plurality of nodes to update node states,” and “generating simultaneous predictions for at least a subset of the plurality of nodes based on the updated node states” merely describes the standard mathematical operation of a transformer (or attention-based) architecture. Tokens/nodes hold embeddings, multi-head attention passes information between tokens to update their states, and multi-task heads produce simultaneous outputs. These are mathematical concepts. The 2019 PEG and Federal Circuit precedent (SAP America, Electric Power Group, RecogniCorp) establish that reciting a particular mathematical algorithm or its automated implementation does not remove a claim from the abstract-idea category when the claim’s focus remains the abstract result (here, hierarchical sports predictions).
The normalization limitation (“normalizing the player-level predictions based on corresponding team-level predictions of the one or more top-down predictions to generate one or more combined predictions”) is arithmetic post-processing (scaling or adjusting numerical outputs so that the aggregate of player-level predictions matches a team-level prediction). As Applicant’s own specification example confirms, this is ordinary mathematical consistency enforcement. It is insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not constitute a technical improvement to the computer, the neural network, or any other technology under MPEP 2106.05(a).
Under Step 2A Prong 2, the claims still do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. There is no improvement to computer functionality, transformer efficiency, data structures, or hardware. The transformer components (embedding layers, encoder layers, fully connected layers) are recited at a high level of generality. Tracking-device data reception, real-time updates, data-platform access, and display are generic data-gathering and output steps. The claims merely use a generic computer and conventional machine-learning building blocks as tools to perform the abstract hierarchical prediction modeling. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h); Mayo; Alice; Intellectual Ventures.
Under Step 2B, the additional elements (standard transformer architecture with multi-entity tokens and attention, generic tracking devices, display devices, and data platforms) were well-understood, routine, and conventional by the late-2023 filing date. Normalization of hierarchical numerical predictions is conventional statistical practice. Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The § 101 rejection is therefore maintained and updated 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes and/ or certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
More specifically, regarding Step 1, of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a machine, process, and/or an article of manufacturer, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a – Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Claims 1-20 describe a method, system, and computer-readable medium for generating multi-level predictions for a sporting event by receiving top-down team-level predictions, providing them as feature vectors, receiving player-level and team-level feature vectors, inputting both into a transformer-based neural network that comprises a plurality of nodes corresponding to players, teams, and a game state, generating player-level predictions by passing information between the nodes to update node states and generating simultaneous predictions for a subset of the nodes, and normalizing the player-level predictions based on the corresponding team-level predictions to produce combined predictions, with optional real-time updates, display, and data-platform querying.
The claims recite an abstract idea. The steps of collecting hierarchical sports data, processing the data through mathematical operations of a transformer (embeddings, attention/message-passing between nodes, fully-connected layers), generating simultaneous multi-level predictions, and arithmetically normalizing one hierarchical level to another constitute mathematical concepts (neural-network calculations, attention mechanisms, scaling operations) and mental processes (a human analyst observing game context and player tracking data, forming hierarchical predictions, and adjusting player projections to match a team total). This is analogous to the statistical modeling held abstract in SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and the real-time data collection, analysis, and display held abstract in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The recitation of “nodes,” “passing information,” “simultaneous predictions,” and “normalizing” merely describes the mathematical algorithm and conventional hierarchical post-processing; it does not change the abstract character of the claims.
Step 2a – Prong 2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition - see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing – see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea- see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h)
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application (improvements to the functioning of a computer or other technology, application of the judicial exception with a particular machine, transformation of a particular article, or meaningful application beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment) are absent. The transformer-based neural network is recited at a high level of generality (standard embedding layers, encoder layers that perform attention, fully connected layers, multi-entity tokens/nodes). No improvement to computer functionality, transformer architecture efficiency, data structures, or hardware is claimed. Receiving data from tracking devices, real-time updates, accessing a data platform, and displaying predictions are generic data-gathering and output steps (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claims merely use a generic computer and conventional machine-learning components as tools to perform the abstract hierarchical prediction modeling (“apply it”). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h); Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.; Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp. There is no technical solution to a technical problem; the problem solved is an application-domain problem of generating consistent sports predictions.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The transformer architecture (including multi-token/node attention for players/teams/game state and multi-output heads) was well-understood, routine, and conventional in machine learning, including sports analytics, by the late-2023 filing date (see Simpson, Cited no. 2 from 6/20/2024 IDS). Tracking devices, real-time updates, data platforms, and display devices are generic. The normalization step is conventional arithmetic post-processing. Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements append only generic computer implementation and conventional machine-learning practices to the abstract idea. Consequently, claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Filing of New or Amended Claims
The examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the original disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. See Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263, 191 USPQ at 97 (“[T]he PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). However, when filing an amendment an applicant should show support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims. See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 (“Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”). Please see MPEP 2163 (II) 3. (b)
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SENG H LIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3301. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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.
/Seng H Lim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights