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 .
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 07/07/2026. Presently, claims 1-2, 4, 6-8 are 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 6-8 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.
Claim 1 is directed to “a system” (i.e. a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: Yes.
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “determine that the at least one live sporting event is in progress; and determine, from the data feed, that at least one player of the plurality of platers is active and a comparison that provides judgement” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion) which are “performed on a computer” (per MPEP 2106(III)(C) “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”).
The claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental process.” Independent claim 1, analyzed as the representative of the claimed subject matter, is reproduced below. The limitations determined to be abstract ideas are in italics. The additional elements recited at a high level of generality are shown in bold. The limitation(s) determined to be extra-solution activity are underlined.
Representative Independent Claim 1: A system comprising:
a fantasy sports network configured to communicate with a mobile device configured to operate an application that is configured to display sub-menus, wherein each sub-menu corresponds to a respective player of a plurality of players in at least one live sporting event; and
a data feed from the at least one live sporting event, wherein data in the data feed comprises sensed data from at least one sensor, and the fantasy sports network is configured to:
store the plurality of players in the at least one live sporting event in a database of the fantasy sports network;
determine that the at least one live sporting event is in progress; and
determine, from the data feed, that at least one player of the plurality of players is active, and
retrieve a fantasy roster associated with a user from the database, wherein the fantasy roster comprises a selection of players selected as a fantasy team;
receive, from a wagering network, one or more available wagers for players in the at least one live sporting event;
identify, based on the fantasy roster and the data feed, at least one player of the fantasy roster that is active in the at least one live sporting event; and
when a wager from the wagering network is available for the at least one identified player, display the available wager in a sub-menu corresponding to the at least one identified player; and
transmit, in real time, a comparison of the at least one player with data received from the at least one live sporting event, wherein metadata associated with the comparison are displayed and the comparison provides judgments about potential performance of the at least one player based upon a probability engine that assembles historical data and real-time data.
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: Yes.
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “a fantasy sports network,” “a mobile device,” “at least one sensor,” and “probability engine” are claimed, as these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering) and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “determine that the at least one live sporting event is in progress; and determine, from the data feed, that at least one player of the plurality of platers is active and a comparison that provides judgement” is not providing a practical application.
Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: No.
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a fantasy sports network,” “a mobile device,” “at least one sensor,” and “probability engine” are claimed these are all generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements, Applicant’s specification discloses them in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a), which satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed, “a fantasy sports network,” “a mobile device,” “at least one sensor,” and “probability engine” are described in the following paragraphs:
“[0057] FIG. 1 is a system for in-play wagering through a fantasy sports network. This system is comprised of a live event 102, for example, a sporting event such as an American football game, a basketball game, a hockey game, a tennis match, golf tournament, eSports or digital game, etc. The live event 102 will include some number of actions or plays, upon with a user or bettor or customer can place a bet or wager, typically through an entity called a sportsbook;” and “[0067] Further, embodiments may include a fantasy sports network 118 which may perform the real-time analysis of each play related to a fantasy sport, in a fantasy sports app 128 and the result of a play or action. The fantasy sport may correspond to the live event 102 i.e. a type of game, played via the internet, where users assemble imaginary or virtual teams of real players of a sport, for example, related to the live event 102.”
“[0071] embodiments may include a mobile device 126 such as a computing device, laptop, smartphone, tablet, computer, smart speaker, or I/O devices. Input devices may include keyboards, mice, trackpads, trackballs, touchpads, touch mice, multi-touch touchpads and touch mice, microphones, multi-array microphones, drawing tablets, cameras, single-lens reflex camera (SLR), digital SLR (DSLR), CMOS sensors, accelerometers, infrared optical sensors, pressure sensors, magnetometer sensors, angular rate sensors, depth sensors, proximity sensors, ambient light sensors, gyroscopic sensors, or other sensors.”
“[0060] may include a plurality of sensors 104 that may be used such as motion sensors, temperature sensors, humidity sensors, cameras such as an RGB-D camera which is a digital camera capturing color (RGB) and depth information for every pixel in an image, microphones, radiofrequency receiver, a thermal imager, a radar device, a LIDAR device, an ultrasound device, a speaker, wearable devices etc. Also, the plurality of sensors 104 may include tracking devices, such as RFID tags, GPS chips or other such devices embedded on uniforms, in equipment, in the field of play, in the boundaries of the field of play, or other markers on the field of play.”
“[0066] The odds calculation module 116 may also utilize a probability engine, which assembles all the historical data and real-time data and produces the odds (stored in the odds database 112) for in- play wagers. Thus, the odds calculation module 116 information relevant to all the potential outcomes, as available wagers, which facilitates the user with a better knowledge to make certain judgements about the potential performance of players in each live event 102 and place a calculated wager with a potential return on the wager. For example, in American football game, the odds calculation module 116 may calculate odds related to the possible outcomes of Alshon Jeffrey (wide receiver) for Philadelphia Eagles against New England Patriots, scoring a touchdown are 4/1 (in moneyline +400), completing a pass are 5/1, and scoring a successful kick are 3/1.”
These elements are reasonably interpreted as a generic computer which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the claimed limitation of “a fantasy sports network,” “a mobile device,” “at least one sensor,” and “probability engine” are reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more. Accordingly, the additional elements listed above do not transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: No.
In addition, dependent claims 2, 4, and 6-8 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2, 4, and 6-8 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-2, 4, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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) 1-2, 4, and 6-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan W. Morgan (US 20160140804 A1; hereinafter Morgan) in view of Erik Schwartz (US 20200234543 A1; hereinafter Schwartz), Doron Lehmann (US 20140236331 A1; hereinafter Lehmann) and Christopher Cody Thompson (US 20170232351 A1; hereinafter Thompson).
Regarding claim 1, Morgan discloses a system comprising: a fantasy sports network configured to communicate with a mobile device configured to operate an application that is configured to display sub-menus, wherein each sub-menu corresponds to a respective player of a plurality of players in at least one live sporting event (“the application may communicate with remote servers that coordinate games between users of the mobile application and assist in providing the functionality described herein” (recited in at least: Morgan paragraph [0008]) that is configured to display sub-menus (recited in at least: Morgan FIGs 3-8B), wherein each sub-menu corresponds to a respective player of a plurality of players in at least one live sporting event (Morgan shows that the menus have a plurality of players that are in the live sporting event (recited in at least: Morgan FIG. 3); and a data feed from the at least one live sporting event, wherein data in the data feed comprises sensed data from at least one sensor (“Sensors, devices, and additional subsystems can be coupled to the peripherals interface” (recited in at least: Morgan paragraph [0085]), and the fantasy sports network is configured to: store the plurality of players in the at least one live sporting event in a database of the fantasy sports network (“team Slate may automatically include one or more players from other teams, for example, a user with a “Team Slate” of Team A may be granted by the Administrator (or personally draft/select) one or more additional players from Team C. This may permit novel gameplay elements and may permit the mobile application to comply with the fantasy sports exemption of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act” (recited in at least: Morgan paragraph [0015]).
However, Morgan does not explicitly disclose determine that the at least one live sporting event is in progress; and determine, from the data feed, that at least one player of the plurality of players is active retrieve a fantasy roster associated with a user from the database, wherein the fantasy roster comprises a selection of players selected as a fantasy team; receive, from a wagering network, one or more available wagers for players in the at least one live sporting event; identify, based on the fantasy roster and the data feed, at least one player of the fantasy roster that is active in the at least one live sporting event; and when a wager from the wagering network is available for the at least one identified player, display the available wager in a sub-menu corresponding to the at least one identified player; and transmit, in real time, a comparison of the at least one player with data received from the at least one live sporting event, wherein metadata associated with the comparison are displayed and the comparison provides judgments about potential performance of the at least one player based upon a probability engine that assembles historical data and real-time data.
Schwartz teaches determine that the at least one live sporting event is in progress; and determine, from the data feed, that at least one player of the plurality of players is active and transmit, in real time, a comparison of the at least one player with data received from the at least one live sporting event (“The time-stamped position information is captured by a telemetry tracking system during the present competition (e.g., a telemetry tracking system described below with respect to FIGS. 1-7). The process uses the time-stamped position information to determine a first play situation of the present competition. The play situation can be determined at a given time point during a live sport event for example” (recited in at least: Schwartz paragraph [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a system that shows the games live so that players that are placing wagers on the game can see the game and get live feedback on how their selections and wagers are going.
Lehmann teaches wherein metadata associated with the comparison are displayed and the comparison provides judgments about potential performance of the at least one player based upon a probability engine that assembles historical data and real-time data (“The decision system can use an in-memory database that includes historical statistical data and is updated in real time with in-game real-time situational data. One or more suggested strategies can be determined and provided to a user based on the historical and real-time situational data. The strategies can be provided, for example, using a dashboard that is based on a portal infrastructure. Real-time probability of success of one or more suggested strategies can be presented, where the strategies are determined according to available resources (e.g., players), past and current (e.g., this game) performance, and real-time variables (e.g., time left in the game, wind factor, spread, game location, foul situation, and others)” (recited in at least: Lehmann paragraph [0012])).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a decision system/judgement from comparisons from historical data and real-time data because it allows for players to have a better idea about what to expect from the active players in a game.
Thompson teaches retrieve a fantasy roster associated with a user from the database, wherein the fantasy roster comprises a selection of players selected as a fantasy team (“The user may also use analytical skills to comprise a collection of players, which may be included in a roster of players” (recited in at least: Thompson paragraph [0033])); receive, from a wagering network, one or more available wagers for players in the at least one live sporting event; identify, based on the fantasy roster and the data feed, at least one player of the fantasy roster that is active in the at least one live sporting event; and when a wager from the wagering network is available for the at least one identified player, display the available wager in a sub-menu corresponding to the at least one identified player (“The user can enter search terms using, for example, a user interface in communication with the system, or keywords to locate available bets, search based on sport, team, player, type of bet or amount wagered, to name but a few” (recited in at least: Thompson paragraph [0044])).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used steps similar as the one taught in Thompson to set up wagering for users to see what is available for them to place wagers on in the system of Morgan for the added benefit of letting users place wagers/bets on what is actually available vs. what isn’t available.
Regarding claim 2, Morgan in view of Schwartz, Lehmann, and Thompson teach the claimed matter as stated above, and Schwartz further suggests synchronize the plurality of players in the fantasy sports network with a cloud, wherein the cloud is configured to enable real-time analysis (“Synchronization of the data sources via timestamps allows for a designer of the present disclosure to provide services with an additional layer of accuracy, particularly with betting and wagering on outcomes at a live event. For instance, in some embodiments data provided to a user device 700 (e.g., streaming data 280 and/or direct data 282 of FIG. 2B) describes the wagering (e.g., odds) on a next play in a football game. In order to determine if an end user of the user device 700 places a wager within a predetermined window of time (e.g., before the snap of the ball of the next play), the game clock and real-world time data received from the user device and/or communicated to the user device are analyze” (recited in at least: Schwartz paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 4, Morgan in view of Schwartz, Lehmann, and Thompson teach the claimed matter as stated above, Morgan further suggests a base fantasy module configured to communicate after the user logs-in to the fantasy sports network through the application on the mobile device (“after a user logs in and joins or is assigned to a community, a user may start in the community lobby on the mobile application. The user may choose to join (and compete in) a pre-existing contest created by another user in the community. Alternatively, the user may create a contest and post it in the lobby” (recited in at least: Morgan paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claim 6, Morgan in view of Schwartz, Lehmann, and Thompson teach the claimed matter as stated above, Schwartz further suggests wherein the fantasy sports network is further configured to perform real-time analysis of each play in the at least one live sporting event (“FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating an embodiment of a system for making use of telemetry tracking devices to enable event based analysis at a live game. This exemplary system 48 makes use of telemetry tracking devices to enable event based analysis at a live game of a competition between a first competitor and a second competitor” (recited in at least: Schwartz paragraph [0018])).
Regarding claim 7, Morgan in view of Schwartz, Lehmann, and Thompson teach the claimed matter as stated above, Morgan further suggests wherein the sub-menus correspond to highlighted players on offense (“A fantasy sports game 15 is a game with rules that is played between two or more users 20 who each select athletes to populate a fantasy team 340 (FIG. 3). Each fantasy team 340 is scored from accumulated statistics of the fantasy team athletes as achieved in live sporting events. The user 20 who accumulates the highest score wins and may be awarded a prize” (recited in at least: Morgan paragraph 0046])).
Regarding claim 8, Morgan in view of Schwartz, Lehmann, and Thompson teach the claimed matter as stated above, and Morgan further suggests wherein the database is a fantasy user database of the fantasy sports network, and wherein the fantasy user database is separate from a wagering user database of the wagering network (“including accessing and storing data in associated databases, and enable one or more interactions via the user device” (recited in at least: Morgan paragraph [0093])). It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to know that you can separate data bases for user information, wagering information (such as payment methods), and for the fantasy athletes for the added benefit of making sure user information and payment information is kept secure for privacy.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant states on page 2 of the remarks that the newly added claim amendments add/define a “specific technical architecture” that is a specific technical improvement. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant newly added claim limitations are steps that a computer is doing to carry out the abstract idea by using a generic computer. In addition, merely “[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) (“simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.”), aff’d, 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant argues on pages 3-5 of the remarks that the prior art used in the Non-Final Rejection mailed out on 04/23/2026 does not teach the newly added claim limitations found in independent claim 1. The Examiner does not rely on the prior art used in that Action to teach the newly added claim limitations, arguments are now moot.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SELWA A ALSOMAIRY whose telephone number is (703)756-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM to 5PM EST.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at (571) 270-7625. 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.
/SELWA A ALSOMAIRY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/Jay Trent Liddle/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights