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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/23/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 17 have been amended.
Claims 18-20 have been newly added.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending
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.
This subject matter eligibility analysis follows the latest guidance for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claims 1 – 20 are drawn to a method.
Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1: Does the Claim recite an Abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Claims 1 and 4 are exemplary because they require substantially the same operative limitations of the remaining claims 2, 3, and 5 - 20 (reproduced below.) Examiner has underlined the claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, discussed in detail in the paragraphs that follow.
1. A method comprising:
collecting real-time sensor data from a live event to determine a current state of the live event;
extracting historical data related to the real-time sensor data from a historical database;
calculating a probability of at least one sub-event occurring based on the current state of the live event;
when the calculated probability does not exceed a threshold, generating at least one action that does not result in the sub-event occurring and
determining probabilities for the at least one action to occur;
streaming video from the live event;
transmitting the determined probabilities on the at least one action that does not result in the sub-event occurring, wherein the determined probabilities are displayed on a device of the user with the streamed video from the live event
The claims recite italicized limitations that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, namely, Mental Processes and Mathematical Concepts
More specifically, under this grouping, the italicized limitations represent mathematical concepts. For example, the italicized limitations are directed towards the calculation of probabilities, simulating and determining probabilities of an action to occur by means of a mathematical calculation. This also represents a mental process such as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), wherein a person observes or collects with pen and paper, live event and utilizes historical data for comparison and real-time data to calculate a probability of an event occurring and deciding when a threshold is exceeded and taking an action based upon that determination.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
Although the claims recite additional limitations, these limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require additional limitations as follow, (emphasis added): collecting real-time sensor data, extracting historical data from a historical database, streaming video, transmitting and displaying probabilities on a user device
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, since the additional limitations, individually or in combination, are indistinguishable from a computer used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, the analysis continues to Step 2B, below.
Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, as pointed out above, the claimed invention recites additional elements facilitating implementation of the abstract idea. Applicant has claimed the use of data collected from a sensor(s) and sensor devices (i.e. camera etc.) and extracting data from a database, streaming video, transmitting and displaying probabilities on a user device. However, all of these elements viewed individually and as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
As the Alice court cautioned, citing Flook, patent eligibility cannot depend simply on the draftsman’s art. Here, amending the claims with generic computing elements does not (in this Examiner’s opinion), confer eligibility.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Alonso (US 2013/0066448) establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0069] Measuring devices or sensor modules, as shown in FIG. 2, may include RTLS/RTSS or other RF system devices with a heart rate monitor 35, a body temperature probe 40, a conventional pedometer 45, a conventional accelerometer 50, and conventional impact sensor 55 and camera 60. Alternatively, multifunctional sensors which can perform all the aforementioned functions and may be attached or embedded, wherein each of the telemetry and/or sensor modules may connect electronically with each other and to the system using RTLS/RTSS and/or RF technologies.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Callery et al (2008/0287198) establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0112] The database may be implemented by any quantity of conventional or other databases or storage structures (e.g., file, data structure, etc.), may be arranged in any fashion and may store any desired information relating to the user, system and/or competitions (e.g., user information (e.g., personal information, profile, net points, cumulative points, etc.), system information, standings, team information, draft information, etc.). The database may be local to or remote from the end-user and/or server computer systems.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Sonabend et al (US 2016/0021317) establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0013] In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, a stream of video images of a real scene that may have at least one display-object may be obtained using, for instance, conventional broadcast cameras.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Applicant’ own specification establishes that these additional elements such as sensors, are generic:
[0059] Further, embodiments may include a plurality of sensors 104 that may be used such
as motion, temperature, or humidity sensors, optical sensors and cameras such as an RGB-D camera which is a digital camera capable of capturing color (RGB) and depth information for every pixel in an image, microphones, radiofrequency receivers, thermal imagers, radar devices, lidar devices, ultrasound devices, speakers, wearable devices, etc. Also, the plurality of sensors 104 may include but are not limited to, tracking devices, such as RFID tags, GPS chips, or other such devices embedded on uniforms, in equipment, in the field of play and boundaries of the field of play, or on other markers in the field of play. Imaging devices may also be used as tracking devices, such as player tracking, which provide statistical information through real-time X, Y positioning of players and X, Y, Z positioning of the ball.
Therefore, these elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Moreover, the claims do not recite improvements to another technology or technical field. Nor, do the claims improve the functioning of the underlying computer itself -- they merely recite generic computing elements. Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing: the underlying computing elements remain the same.
Concerning preemption, the Federal Circuit has said in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of cffDNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amaitis (US 2019/0122482) in view of Singer et al (US 20130203482) in view of Torf (US 2011/0014974)
As per claim 1, Amaitis discloses:
collecting real-time sensor data from a live event to determine a current state of the live event; (Amaitis discloses the collection of real time data from a sensor to determine current game state of a live event) (Amaitis 0104, 0112)
extracting historical data related to the real-time sensor data from a historical database; (Amaitis discloses the extraction of historical data related to the sensor data) (Amaitis 0118, 0141)
calculating a probability of at least one sub-event occurring based on the current state of the live event; (Amaitis discloses the calculation of probabilities of at least one sub-event that occurs in the live game event, wherein the calculated probabilities are used to calculate odds for offered wagers) (Amaitis 0141, 0142, 0143 – 0147)
streaming video from the live event (Amaitis discloses: “Data provider 8 may provide event and/or wager-related information in real time, as information first becomes available to the general public, or at another time after an event. Data provider 8 may provide such information in any one or more of a variety of forms and means such as video (e.g., a sporting event broadcast), audio (radio broadcast), text (e.g., the words of a radio broadcast in text form), or other data that conveys information concerning the event.”) (Amaitis 0132)
transmitting … the at least one action that does not result in the sub-event occurring… (Amaitis discloses the offering of wagers on at least one action that occurs and/or action that does not occur, such as offering a bet with opposing sides (i.e. Steelers beat the Colts vs Colts beat the Steelers) (Amaitis 0119, 0122, 0163, 0164)
Amaitis fails to specifically disclose:
when the calculated probability does not exceed a threshold, generating at least one action that does not result in the sub-event occurring and determining probabilities for the at least one action to occur;
transmitting the determined probabilities on…wherein the determined probabilities are displayed on a device of a user with the streamed video from the live event.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Singer discloses the offering a player an alternative wagering event in based upon a comparison of a wagering event not exceeding or exceeding a probability threshold (Singer 0140)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Amaitis in view of Singer to utilize a threshold criteria as it applies to the chance of a certain event may occur, wherein certain wagers are only offered upon meeting the threshold criteria of odds or probability. In doing so, the house is not left exposed by offering wagers upon events that have a high chance of occurring in the live event.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, wherein wagering events are determined, Torf discloses the determination of sporting events that are able to be wagered upon and the displaying of the probabilities of success of each wagering event for the client computing device (Torf 0024 and claim 1)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Amaitis in view of Torf to utilize a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way by displaying a calculated probability of success of a potential wagering opportunity. This would be beneficial to a bettor as they can would be made aware of the potential for a particular bet or wager opportunity to succeed and help them to choose the best possible betting opportunity.
As per claim 13, further comprising determining the probabilities using the collected real-time sensor data. (Amaitis 0104, 0112, 0141 – 0149)
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amaitis (US 2019/0122482) in view of Singer et al (US 20130203482) in view of Torf (US 2011/0014974) in view of Alderucci et al (US 2010/0203938).
As per claim 2, Amaitis and Singer fail to disclose:
further comprising determining that the at least one sub-event will occur by calculating a 99% likelihood of the at least one sub-event occurring.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Alderucci teaches the determination of a likelihood value (i.e. probability value) of an outcome in relation to a threshold of at least 99% (Alderucci 0452, 0453)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Amaitis in view of Alderucci to determine compare a determined outcome probability to a particular threshold such as 99% as this would enable to the house to see that some outcomes are almost certain to occur and they house can adjust the offered wager to the use so that the house isn’t left exposed and lose profit on the wager.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amaitis (US 2019/0122482) in view of Singer et al (US 20130203482) in view of Torf (US 2011/0014974) in view of Ruiz et al (US 2019/0228290)
As per claim 3, Amaitis fails to disclose:
further comprising predicting which players will be part of the next action using the simulated action and data from a player lineup database.
However, in a similar field of endeavor wherein likely outcome are determined for a sporting event or game, Ruiz teaches the use of making a match prediction that is based upon predicting “which players are on the court at every game”, given the line-up features, current game state and box score (Ruiz 0141).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Amaitis in view of Ruiz to create game events that relate to the prediction of which players will be part of the next game action. This would be beneficial as it would encourage players of the betting game to remain engaged during the game event by providing a wide variety of prediction events a player can bet upon.
Claim(s) 4 – 10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amaitis (US 2019/0122482) in view of Torf (US 2011/0014974)
As per claim 4, Amaitis discloses:
collecting real-time sensor data from a live event to determine a current state of the live event; (Amaitis discloses the collection of real time data from a sensor to determine current game state of a live event) (Amaitis 0104, 0112)
extracting historical data related to the real-time sensor data from a historical database; (Amaitis discloses the collection of real time data from a sensor to determine current game state of a live event) (Amaitis 0104, 0112)
designating a one sub-event that will occur based on the current state of the live event; (Amaitis discloses the monitoring of a live event such as a sports game wherein within the sports game are multiple betting events that a player can place wagers upon various actions that will occur. The sports game has at least one or more designated sub-events such as an ending event (i.e. sub-event) that correlates to the end of the game, inning, quarter, possession etc.) (Amaitis 0099, 0101, 0105, 0127, 0128, 0162, 0180)
generating at least one action that can occur before the sub-event occurring and determining probabilities for the at least one action to occur; (Amaitis discloses the generation of multiple possible actions that can occur before the sub-event and determine odds and probabilities for that actions) (Amaitis 0141, 0142, 0143 – 0147, 0156)
streaming video from the live event (Amaitis discloses: “Data provider 8 may provide event and/or wager-related information in real time, as information first becomes available to the general public, or at another time after an event. Data provider 8 may provide such information in any one or more of a variety of forms and means such as video (e.g., a sporting event broadcast), audio (radio broadcast), text (e.g., the words of a radio broadcast in text form), or other data that conveys information concerning the event.”) (Amaitis 0132)
transmitting …on the at least one action that does not result in the sub-event occurring, …. (Amaitis discloses the offering of wagers on at least one action that occurs and/or action that does not occur, such as offering a bet with opposing sides (i.e. Steelers beat the Colts vs Colts beat the Steelers) (Amaitis 0119, 0122, 0163, 0164). Amaitis discloses offering the wager opportunity to the user wherein they can wager upon the action occurring prior to a game ending event (i.e. end of game)) (Amaitis 0191 – 0192).
Amaitis fails to specifically disclose:
transmitting the determined probabilities on…wherein the determined probabilities are displayed on a device of a user with the streamed video from the live event.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, wherein wagering events are determined, Torf discloses the determination of sporting events that are able to be wagered upon and the displaying of the probabilities of success of each wagering event for the client computing device (Torf 0024 and claim 1)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Amaitis in view of Torf to utilize a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way by displaying a calculated probability of success of a potential wagering opportunity. This would be beneficial to a bettor as they can would be made aware of the potential for a particular bet or wager opportunity to succeed and help them to choose the best possible betting opportunity.
As per claim 5, wherein the sub-event is an end of a game. (Amaitis 0100, 0245)
As per claim 6, wherein the sub-event is an end of a period of a game. ((Amaitis 0187, 0214)
As per claim 7, wherein the sub-event is an end of a possession. (Amaitis 0187, 0192, 0244, 0284)
As per claim 8, wherein the sub-event is an end of a time period in a game. (Amaitis 0245)
As per claim 9, wherein the sub-event is an at-bat. (Amaitis 0217)
As per claim 10, wherein the sub-event is an end of a half inning or inning. (Amaitis 0276)
As per claim 16, further comprising determining the probabilities using the collected real-time sensor data. (Amaitis 0104, 0112, 0141 – 0149)
Claim(s) 11 -12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amaitis (US 2019/0122482) in view of Singer et al (US 20130203482) in view of Torf (US 2011/0014974) in view of Khosla (US 2022/0108586.
Amaitis fails to disclose the elements of claims 11 – 12.
Amaitis fails to disclose:
As per claim 11, further comprising collecting the real-time sensor data from at least one of a motion sensor, a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, an optical sensor, a microphone, a radio receiver, a thermal imager, a tracking device, an accelerometer, a radar device, a LIDAR device, and/or an ultrasound device.
As per claims 12, further comprising collecting the real-time sensor data from a camera.
However in a similar field of endeavor wherein wagers are offered with respect to real time games, Khosla discloses a system of utilizing real-time game wherein wagering events are detected based upon at least sensors comprising cameras.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Amaitis in view of Khosla to provide a system that offers wagers based upon real-time sensor data detected from a camera. This would enable the system to provide wagering opportunities that are current and up to date based upon real-time situations that occur in the game as they develop.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amaitis (US 2019/0122482) in view of Torf (US 2011/0014974) in view of Khosla (US 2022/0108586).
Amaitis fails to disclose the element of claims 14 and 15
Amaitis fails to disclose:
As per claim 14, further comprising collecting the real-time sensor data from at least one of a motion sensor, a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, an optical sensor, a microphone, a radio receiver, a thermal imager, a tracking device, an accelerometer, a radar device, a LIDAR device, and/or an ultrasound device.
As per claims 15, further comprising collecting the real-time sensor data from a camera.
However in a similar field of endeavor wherein wagers are offered with respect to real time games, Khosla discloses a system of utilizing real-time game wherein wagering events are detected based upon at least sensors comprising cameras.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Amaitis in view of Khosla to provide a system that offers wagers based upon real-time sensor data detected from a camera. This would enable the system to provide wagering opportunities that are current and up to date based upon real-time situations that occur in the game as they develop.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amaitis (US 2019/0122482) in view of Torf (US 2011/0014974) in view of Khosla (US 2022/0108586) in view of Trepp et al (2020/0126363).
As per claim 17, Amaitis fails to disclose:
further comprising obtaining data from an RFID tag.
However in a similar field of endeavor wherein wagers are offered with respect to real time games, Trepp discloses a system of utilizing real-time game wherein wagering events are detected based upon at least sensors comprising RFID tags that players wear.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Amaitis in view of Trepp to provide a system that offers wagers based upon real-time sensor data detected from a RFID tags. This would enable the system to provide wagering opportunities that are current and up to date based upon real-time situations that occur in the game as they develop.
Claim(s) 18 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amaitis (US 2019/0122482) in view of Singer et al (US 20130203482) in view of Torf (US 2011/0014974) in view of O’Leary et al (US 2021/0287565)
As per claim 18, Amaitis fails to explicitly disclose : generating a simulated play based upon a most likely outcome that did not result in the sub- event occurring.
As per claim 19, Amaitis fails to explicitly disclose : generating a simulated play for each outcome that did not result in the sub-event occurring.
As per claim 20, simultaneously selecting each simulated play; and calculating cumulative probabilities of the sub-event occurring for each simulated play.
However, O’Leary discloses the simulation of plays that are associated with a probability of occurring or not occurring. O’Leary further teaches the selection of at least two outcomes that may happen and simulate the cumulative probabilities of each event happening. O’Leary teaches “After team selections are made in FIG. 3, FIG. 4 presents a game screen 218 that visualizes current game information such as the scores of the first team and second team 220, the time remaining in the game 222, ball possession 224, remaining timeouts 226, and offensive drive information (play number and yards to conversion) 228. It will be appreciated that other information can also be included. In addition, the game screen 218 further includes predictive visualizations. For example, a current win probability indicator 230 provides a game winning probability as a percentage measurement. As illustrated, the current win probability of each team is 50%, respectfully. Further, the information described in numeral designations 220 through 228 may be manually edited from actual numbers to predicted or simulated numbers and the game winning probability can be recalculated with GWC button 232. In addition, depending on the offensive teams field position, a kickoff button 234 may initiate a kickoff simulation to recommend an on-side or regular kick-off based on which play has the greatest chance for winning the game. A run PAT button 236 is also included and may measure game winning probably in view of attempting an extra point after a touchdown. (O’Leary 0047)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Amaitis in view of O’Leary to provide a simulation of outcomes that have a probability of occurring. This would enable the game player and/or the game establishment have the most relevant information regarding which outcome may happen and that would provide them with an opportunity to decide which outcome has the most advantageous outcome in their favor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Please see above rejection addressing the newly amended claim language in view of O’Leary.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/23/2025 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner notes that the Applicant has amended the claims to remove limitations directed towards wagering and as such, the Examiner has modified the determination that the claims are directed towards “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and notes the amended claims are directed towards mathematical concepts and mental processes.
With respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant argues:
As set forth in M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(a)(2)-III-A, claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations. See SRI Int'l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Claim 1, as amended, recites: "streaming video from the live event" (emphasis added). Similar subject matter appears in claim 4. Paragraph [0062] provides support. Streaming video from the live event cannot be performed mentally.
As set forth in M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(d)(1), a claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field.
Claim 1, as amended, recites: "the determined probabilities are displayed on a device of a user with the streamed video from the live event" (emphasis added). Similar subject matter appears in claim 4. Paragraphs [0062], [0067], and[0071] provide support. This subject matter has the practical application of showing likely and predictive outcomes on a video display to enhance the viewability of the live action game and provide viewers with more information regarding the live action game. (Remarks page 7-8)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and fails to ascertain how the additional limitation of merely streaming video of a live event integrates the exception into a practical application. The Applicant’s alleged practical application of “showing likely and predictive outcomes on a video display to enhance the viewability of the live action game and provide viewers with more information regarding the live action game.” Is more akin to improving the player viewing experience or the player’s overall enjoyment/entertainment of using the system. The Examiner fails to see how this alleged improvement is similar to the Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a).
Applicant further argues:
Thus, while it is understood that a human could observe a scenario in a sporting event and make a general prediction about what may occur, it would be impossible for a human mind to review a catalog of millions of past plays, specifically narrow them down to plays that match the current situation/conditions of the live game, and provide specific probabilities and or other predictive data based on that information.
Finally, it must be appreciated that the collected sensor data is retrieved from the players, equipment and other elements at the sporting event. This data is then transmitted to a cloud where the processing takes place and the probabilities and associated graphics are generated. The generated probabilities and graphics are then transmitted from the cloud in substantially real time to a plurality of user devices in order to show the probabilities and graphics to any number of users in any location in advance of the next action or play in the sporting event. Such actions would be impossible for a human to perform and provide a practical application for users of the method. (Remarks page 8)
The Examiner appreciates the Applicant’s remarks and reasoning, but respectively disagrees and notes that it appears that the Applicant is arguing limitations that are clearly not found in the claims when attempting to show that the claim limitations provide a practical application. For instance, the claims fail to recite “real-time positioning of players, “time remaining, score, field location and specific players”, a database of hundreds of thousands of previous football plays, a catalog of millions of past plays, transmitting to a cloud, where graphics are generated, etc. As can be clearly seen from the submitted claims, the claims merely require the collection sensor data to determine live event state, the extracting of historical data (i.e. one or two historical play data points) and calculating a probability of an action or sub-event occurring based on the current state of the live event, comparing the probability to a threshold and generating an action that does not result in the sub-event occurring and further determining probabilities of the one action to occur. A human can clearly perform these actions utilizing powers of observation and pen and paper via a mathematical process.
The Examiner maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5911. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 4pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/RAW/Examiner, Art Unit 3715 1/5/2025
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715