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 .
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 6/27/2025 have been approved by the Examiner.
IDS
The IDS’s filed 2/26/2024 and 3/24/2025 have been previously considered by the Examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 7, 13, and 20 have been cancelled
Claims 21-23 have been added.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-19, and 21-23 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments concerning the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are directed towards newly added subject matter and are fully address below in the context of the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Throughout the claims, the applicant uses the language, “…by a[the] computer system” followed by a recited function, without reciting sufficient structure to performed the recited function. The Examiner recommends adding the language, “…executed by one or more processors” after “by a[the] computer system” as recited in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-6, 8-12, 14-19, and 21-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The independent claims were amended to recite:
“based on the monitoring, predicting, by the computer system, that the first event or a second event will occur within the game;”
The Examiner notes, the claim limitation as written makes the second event optional, and may not occur.
The next limitation in the claim cites, “…presenting, in a portal, by the computing system, the predictions of the first event and the second event.”
The second event as set forth in the claim is optional and may never occur, therefore, the presenting limitation referring to the second event is indefinite.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8-9, 14-16, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayaram US 2021/0142066 in view of Gratton (US 20230421827A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jayaram discloses a method comprising:
generating, by a computing system, a broadcast feed corresponding to a game (Jayaram [0222] “For example, the platform may time align one or more broadcast video feeds and one or more tracking camera feeds at respective time slices where a player crosses a logo or other stationary features on the playing surface in each of the respective feeds (broadcast video and tracking camera feeds”);
deriving, by a pre-processing agent of the computing system, a tracking data feed from the broadcast feed of a game, the tracking data feed being derived to track x, y coordinates of one or more players and one or more objects by extracting position information of the one or more players and one or more objects from the broadcast feed and projecting information into a two-dimensional playing surface including the x, y coordinates (Jayaram [0222] In some embodiments, the platform may use stationary features on a playing surface (e.g., a basketball court) to calibrate the broadcast video camera parameters and to time align two or more video feeds, For example, the platform may utilize stationary lines (e.g., yard lines, top of the three point line, a half court line, a center field line, side lines, intersections between half court or field lines and side lines, logos, goal posts, and the like) to calibrate the broadcast video camera parameters, In these embodiments, the stationary features may be detected in the broadcast video feed and in the tracking video feed, In embodiments, the platform may determine the x, y, and z locations of the stationary features in the tracking video feed, and may calibrate the broadcast video camera parameters based on the x, y, z coordinates of the stationary features or voxel coordinates…”);
monitoring, by the computing system, the tracking data feed to automatically detect a first event to occur within the game, wherein the first event is detected based on the x, y coordinates of the one or more players and one or more objects meeting a tracking data criteria for the first event (Jayaram [0221] In embodiments, other feeds may be available that may contain additional information about events that are contained in the tracking camera video feed. For example, a data feed, such as a play-by-play feed, for a game may be ingested at a step 4422.);
based on the monitoring, predicting, by the computing system, that the first event or a second event will occur within the game (Jayaram [Fig. 15] “Chances”);
presenting, in a portal, by the computing system, the predictions of the first event and the second event (Jayaram [Fig. 15] “Chances”);
based on the monitoring, determining, by the computing system, that the event has occurred within the game (Jayaram [0221] In embodiments, other feeds may be available that may contain additional information about events that are contained in the tracking camera video feed. For example, a data feed, such as a play-by-play feed, for a game may be ingested at a step 4422.);
Jayamar does not disclose, but Gratton discloses
based on the determining, generating, by the computing system, a graphic associated with the first event, (Gratton [0033], “…a digital picture frame that contains the NFT and video delivered to the user, or uploading to an NFT marketplace.”) wherein the graphic comprises insights related to the first event, wherein the graphics is a generated image or video of the player corresponding to the insights, the graphic generated by a graphics engine of the computer system (Gratton [0028], “In some embodiments, the available NFTs are based on a player or team being involved in an occurrence. For example, an available NFT can be based on a team winning or losing a game. If the selected team wins, a NFT is associated with video of the event(s) (e.g., interception, great pass, or bad penalty, compilation) that determined the outcome of the game.”);
generating, by the computing system, a non-fungible token corresponding to the first event, wherein the non-fungible token is linked to the graphic (Gratton [0022], “FIG. 1 illustrates an example simplified block diagram of a system 100 for generating NFTs that correspond to one or more potential recordings of segments of a live event.”); and
broadcasting, by the computing system, the non-fungible token to a blockchain (Gratton [0021], “A NFT is a unique unit of data employing technology that allows digital content to be logged and authenticated using blockchains. Once content is logged onto the blockchain, every transaction associated with the NFT, from transfers to sales, is recorded on the blockchain.”).
These noted feature in Gratton are applicable to the method and system of Jayamar as both prior art references share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to finding video sequences such as those occurring in sports. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jayamar as described above because in live events, such as sporting events, certain things happen that become famous. For example, a great touchdown completion or last minute comeback, especially during an important game, can become well known. Video of these types of events sometimes become popular through a viral process of Internet sharing, typically through video sharing as well as on social media and email. The video can be shared on social media and through video sharing platforms, but the original video is owned by the copyright owner, which is usually the entity that recorded the video (see Gratton [0001]).
Regarding claim 2, Jayamar does not disclose, but Gratton discloses the method of further comprising:
receiving, by the computing system, real-time or near real-time bids for the non-fungible token to be generated for the first event to be detected in the game (Gratton [Fig. 3A]); and
identifying, by the computing system, a winning user of the plurality of users based on the real-time or near real-time bids (Gratton [claim 16], “The method of claim 1, wherein a price for at least one of the one or more available NFTs is determined by an auction where only a highest bid receives exclusive rights to the available NFT.”).
This noted feature in Gratton is applicable to the method and system of Jayamar as both prior art references share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to finding video sequences such as those occurring in sports. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jayamar as described above because in live events, such as sporting events, certain things happen that become famous. For example, a great touchdown completion or last minute comeback, especially during an important game, can become well known. Video of these types of events sometimes become popular through a viral process of Internet sharing, typically through video sharing as well as on social media and email. The video can be shared on social media and through video sharing platforms, but the original video is owned by the copyright owner, which is usually the entity that recorded the video (see Gratton [0001]).
Regarding claim 7, Jayamar does not disclose, but Gratton discloses the method further comprising:
causing, by the computing system, presentation of the artificial intelligence driven prediction in the portal (Gratton [0036], “… In some embodiments, the video of an event is marked and tagged manually, using artificial intelligence (AI), based on metadata, and/or optical character recognition (OCR) of information displayed on screen. For example, the system can determine that a particular batter is coming to the plate based on image recognition of a bat and OCR of the number on the player's jersey.”).
This noted feature in Gratton is applicable to the method and system of Jayamar as both prior art references share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to finding video sequences such as those occurring in sports. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jayamar as described above because in live events, such as sporting events, certain things happen that become famous. For example, a great touchdown completion or last minute comeback, especially during an important game, can become well known. Video of these types of events sometimes become popular through a viral process of Internet sharing, typically through video sharing as well as on social media and email. The video can be shared on social media and through video sharing platforms, but the original video is owned by the copyright owner, which is usually the entity that recorded the video (see Gratton [0001]).
The non-transitory computer readable medium set forth in claims 8-9 and 13-14 are rejected under the same rationale as set forth above.
The system set forth in claims 15-16 and 20 are rejected under the same rationale as set forth above.
Regarding claim 21, Jayamar discloses, wherein the first event is at least one of a scoring attempt. (Jayamar [0407] “Optionally, the output of one level may be applied as input to another level. In embodiments, a first level of tactical relevance and similarity computing for determining tactical similarity may include determining spatiotemporal similarity of a plurality of sequences and assigning one or more labels that indicate at least one of a sequence representing a game chance (optionally referred to herein as “chance” or “chances”) and a sequence representing a tactical chance, and a second level of tactical relevance and similarity computing that determines tactical similarity of a plurality of sequences, which may optionally include the plurality of sequences to which the first level of tactical relevance and similarity computing was applied. The second level of tactical relevance and similarity computing may rely on labels of sequences indicating tactical chances as a factor in determining sequence-to-sequence tactical meaning. In embodiments, tactically similar sequences may include similar tactical chance labels but may be differentiated by at least one of movement of elements in the sequence, time duration of movement of elements in the sequence, total time duration of a sequence, relative position of elements at one or more times in the sequence, and the like.”).
Regarding claim 22, Jayamar discloses, wherein the insights include a text description of the first event (Jayamar [Fig. 15]).
Regarding claim 23, Jayamar discloses, wherein the prediction that the first event or the second event will occur within the game is based on the x, y coordinates of the one or more players, the x, y coordinates of the one or more objects, and a time left in the game (Jayamar [Fig. 15]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3-5, 10-12, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayaram US 2021/0142066 in view of Gratton (US 2023/0421827A1) in further view of Nonni (US 2024/0037539).
Regarding claim 3, Jayaram in view of Gratton does not explicitly teach storing, by the computing system, the non-fungible token in a wallet associated with the computing system.
In a similar field of endeavor, Nonni teaches, storing, by the computing system, a non-fungible token in a wallet associated with a computing system (Nonni [0015] “The object of value may already exist and in such case can be transferred from a wallet associated with the enterprise.”).
This feature is applicable to the methods of Jayamar in view Gratton as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to the management of NFTs (Nonni [0005]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Jayamar in view of Gratton to use wallets as taught by Nonni because NFTs are difficult to create and manage because the technology is so new and is thus less understood (Nonni: [0002]”).
Regarding claim 4, Gratton teaches transferring a non-fungible token to a winning user (Gratton [claim 16] “The method of claim 1, wherein a price for at least one of the one or more available NFTs is determined by an auction where only a highest bid receives exclusive rights to the available NFT.”)..
Jayamar in view of Gratton do not explicitly teach, transferring, by the computing system, the non-fungible token from the wallet associated with the computing system to a second wallet.
In a similar field of endeavor, Nonni teaches, transferring, by the computing system, the non-fungible token from the wallet associated with the computing system to a second wallet (Nonni [0054]).
This feature is applicable to the method of Jayamar in view of Gratton as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to the management of NFTs (Nonni [0005]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Jayamar in view of Gratton to use wallets as taught by Nonni because NFTs are difficult to create and manage because the technology is so new and is thus less understood (Nonni [0002]).
Regarding claim 5, Jayamar in view of Gratton does not explicitly teach, writing, by the computing system, a transfer of the non-fungible token from the wallet associated with the computing system to the second wallet associated with the winning user to the blockchain.
In a similar field of endeavor, Nonni teaches, writing, by the computing system, a transfer of the non-fungible token from the wallet associated with the computing system to the second wallet associated with the winning user to the blockchain (Nonni Abstract).
This feature is applicable to the method of Jayamar in view of Gratton as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to the management of NFTs (Nonni [0005]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Jayamar in view of Gratton to use wallets as taught by Nonni because NFTs are difficult to create and manage because the technology is so new and is thus less understood (Nonni [0002]”).
The non-transitory computer readable medium set forth in claims 10-12 are rejected under the same rationale as set forth above.
The system set forth in claims 17-19 are rejected under the same rationale as set forth above.
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 MATTHEW S GART whose telephone number is (571)272-3955. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Deborah Reynolds can be reached at 571-272-0734. 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.
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights