Detailed Action
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 1-10 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
The claim(s) recite(s), inter alia,
collect and distribute information on sports games
identifying a target sports game
accepting an input of information on an event that has occurred in the sports game, from a user who is watching the sports game
evaluating the accepted event information
distributing the event information based on an evaluation result of the event information
offering a reward to a user who has input the event information, based on the evaluation result of the event information
when a plurality of users at a ratio of not less than a predetermined ratio among a plurality of users have input the event information, the event information is evaluated as correct
when it is determined that the event information from the plurality of users has reached a first evaluation criterion, the event information is evaluated as correct, when it is determined that the event information from the plurality of users has not reached the first evaluation criterion, processing of accepting an input of answers on correctness for the event information from terminal devices of users who are watching the sports game, and when the answers on correctness for the event information from a plurality of users has reached a second evaluation criterion, the event information is evaluated as correct
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claims 1-10 and 15-20 recite steps performable in the human mind. A human being can, using only their mind, pen, and paper, practicably select a sports game, accept information from users about events occurring in the game, evaluate the information for accuracy, disseminate the information if correct, and provide a reward to the users for their participation.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 19 and 20 recites the additional elements of a “terminal device,” an “information processing device including a control unit and a storage unit,” and a “computer including a processor and a memory.” Specifically, these additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, are not integrated into a practical application because:
Terminal device: The published specification states:
The terminal device 10 is implemented by a mobile terminal such as a smartphone or a tablet adaptable to a mobile communication system. In addition, the terminal device 10 may be, for example, a portable notebook PC (personal computer) or a laptop PC
Accordingly, it would be reasonable to interpret the terminal device as a generic computing component.
Computer and Information processing device: The published specification states:
The server 20 is a computer connected to the network 80. The server 20 includes a communication IF 22, an input/output IF 23, a memory 25, a storage 26, and a processor 29.
Accordingly, it would again be reasonable to interpret the computer as a generic computing component.
Processor and memory: In paragraph [0031] of the published specification, it states:
The memory 15 temporarily stores programs and data to be processed by the programs, and is a volatile memory such as a DRAM (dynamic random access memory). The storage unit 16 is a storage device for storing data, and is, for example, a flash memory or an HDD (hard disc drive). The processor 19 is hardware for executing a command set described in a program, and is configured by an arithmetic device, a register, a peripheral circuit, and the like..
Again, it would therefore be reasonable to interpret the processor and memory as generic computing components.
Claims 2-10 and 15-18 recite further human-performable on how the information is verified, and thus are also found to be ineligible subject matter under Alice.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a) A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122 (b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
Claims 1-3, 10, 11 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Isobe et al (US 2020/0372378 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Isobe discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores a program to collect and distribute information on sports games (Abstract), processing of identifying a target sports game (202), processing of accepting an input of information on an event that has occurred in the sports game from a terminal device of a user (104) who is watching the sports game (204), processing of evaluating the accepted event information (208), processing of distributing the event information based on an evaluation result of the event information (210), and processing of offering a reward to a user who has input the event information based on the evaluation result of the event information (¶ [0040]: incentives to various users for providing their observations … for example … cryptocurrency).
Regarding claim 2, Isobe discloses wherein in processing of evaluating the event information, when a plurality of users at a ratio of not less than a predetermined ratio among a plurality of users have input the event information, the event information is evaluated as correct (¶ [0013]: determining that the stat is verified when the first audio data matches the second audio data).
Regarding claim 3, Isobe discloses wherein in processing of evaluating the event information, when it is determined that the event information from the plurality of users has reached a first evaluation criterion, the event information is evaluated as correct (¶ [0013]: determining that the stat is verified when the first audio data matches the second audio data), when it is determined that the event information from the plurality of users has not reached the first evaluation criterion (claim 9: first and second audio data are in conflict), processing of accepting an input of answers on correctness for the event information from terminal devices of users who are watching the sports game, and when the answers on correctness for the event information from a plurality of users has reached a second evaluation criterion, the event information is evaluated as correct (claim 10: when the first and second audio data do not match, a third audio data is used to verify the stat).
Regarding claim 10, Isobe discloses wherein in processing of distributing the event information, the event information evaluated as correct is distributed (210).
Regarding claim 11, Isobe discloses wherein the memory stores information of sports games, and in processing of identifying a sports game, the information on the sports games is transmitted to a terminal device of a user and displayed so that the user can select the information, and the sports game is identified based on an input of selection by the user (¶ [0047]: client device may include a graphical user interface that allows the user(s) to input their observations).
Regarding claim 14, Isobe discloses wherein the memory stores event information corresponding to sports games, and in processing of accepting an input of event information, the event information is transmitted to a terminal device of a user and displayed so that the user can select the information, and an input of event information is accepted based on an input of selection by the user (¶ [0047]: client device may include a graphical user interface that allows the user(s) to input their observations).
Regarding claim 15, Isobe discloses wherein in processing of accepting an input of event information, an input of one or more pieces of event information linked to one piece of event information selected by the user is accepted (104).
Regarding claim 16, Isobe discloses processing of accepting an input for distributing a reward for a user who has input event information, to a person concerned with a sports game, and processing of transmitting information for transferring the reward for the user to the person concerned based on the input for distributing the reward for the user to the person concerned (¶ [0040]: incentives to various users for providing their observations … for example … cryptocurrency).
Regarding claim 17, Isobe discloses wherein the reward for the user who has input the event information is recorded as a token on a blockchain (¶ [0040]: incentives to various users for providing their observations … for example … cryptocurrency).
Regarding claim 18, Isobe discloses wherein the reward for the user who has input the event information is recorded as a value exchangeable for currency (¶ [0040]: incentives to various users for providing their observations … for example … cryptocurrency).
Claims 19 and 20 recite an information processing device and a method, respectively, comprising substantially the same limitations as those in claim 1 above. They are accordingly rejected for the same reasons given supra. Further regarding claims 19 and 20, Isobe discloses an information processing device including a control unit and a storage unit (Fig. 3) and a computer including a processor and a memory (Fig. 3).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. If this application names joint inventors, Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isobe in view of Olson et al (US 2015/0065214 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Olson suggests—where Isobe does not disclose—wherein in processing of ranking the users who have input the event information (¶ [0041]), based on the evaluation result of the event information, and in processing of evaluating the event information, when it is determined that the event information from the plurality of users has reached the first evaluation criterion, and when it is determined that the answers on correctness for the event information from the plurality of users has reached the second evaluation criterion, the users are weighted according to ranks thereof, and determination is made (¶ [0041]: determine the most relevant aspects of the user rankings that provide the most accurate prediction of future performance and weight those aspects higher than other aspects). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Isobe and Olson in order to produce more accurate data.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isobe in view of Olson and Su (US 2013/0204825 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Su suggests—where Isobe does not disclose—wherein based on information on sports games which users have watched in the past, information on sports games is transmitted to terminal devices of the users and recommended to the users (¶ [0071]: recommendation engine may determine the percentage of other users that are similar to the user … having watched a previous matchup featuring one or both of the teams). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Isobe, Olson and Su in order to provide the user with games they will be more likely to be interested in.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 5-9 are not subject to a novelty or obviousness rejection, but are rejected under 35 USC 101 as ineligible subject matter as noted supra.
Conclusion
The prior art considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and not relied upon is made of record on the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE ROWLAND whose telephone number is (469) 295-9129. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 10-8. 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 number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
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.
Applicant may choose, at his or her discretion, to correspond with Examiner via Internet e-mail. A paper copy of any and all email correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application file. Email communication must be authorized in advance. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via e-mail to any correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122.
Authorization may be perfected by submitting, on a separate paper, the following (or similar) disclaimer:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See MPEP 502.03 for more information.
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.
/STEVE ROWLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715