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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/20/2026 has been entered.
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 6-7 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
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. 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). Accordingly, the additional elements listed above do not transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B, o of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: No.
In addition, dependent claims 2, 4, and 6-7 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 6-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-2, 4, and 6-7 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.
Claims 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), and Doron Lehmann (US 20140236331 A1; hereinafter Lehmann).
Regarding claim 1, Morgan discloses a system comprising: a fantasy sports network configured to communicate with a mobile device configured to operate an application (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 (see 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 (see 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, 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” (see 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.
Regarding claim 2, Morgan in view of Schwartz in further view of Lehmann teaches the claimed matter as stated above and Schwartz further suggests wherein the system is further configured to: 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 in further view of Lehmann teaches the claimed matter as stated above and Morgan further suggests further comprising: 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 in further view of Lehmann teaches the claimed matter as stated above and 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 in further view of Lehmann teaches the claimed matter as stated above and 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])).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments made to claims 4 and 6 have overcome the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant recites on page 2 of the remarks that "The last Office Action alleged that the claims were directed to a wagering game." However, as recited in the Final Office Action mailed out on 10/28/25 that the claim language used is directed to a wagering game even with the lack of the use of the word "wagering" in the claim. Examiner pointed to paragraph [0005] of the instant Specification that recites "The embodiments include methods, systems and apparatuses for wagering in real time on single plays in sporting events through a fantasy sports software application." The instant application’s Specification further recites in paragraph [0002] "The embodiments are generally related to wagering on micro markets and sub outcomes of live sporting events and integrating that wagering with fantasy sports." The claims as written are "generally related to wagering" as is the instant application without the active use of the word wagering. The claim language is further evaluated to determine whether they amount to something "significantly more" than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the elements recited in page 2 of the remarks "sub menus and a data feed" do not amount to an innovative concept. These limitations are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., "apply it") on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f). Applicant further states on page 2 of the remarks "oral comments by commentators cannot be equated with a display on a computer." The additional elements recited (for example: the display on the computer) at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP $2106.05 I.A.). See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 ("[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract ideas themselves. On page 4 of the remarks, Applicant states that last Office Action mailed "failed to identify an express statement in the specification that demonstrates the well-understood, routine and conventional nature of the additional element(s)." Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the Final Action mailed out on 10/28/25, examiner went over the elements with direct quotes from the instant Specification on pages 9-11 of the action and further explained in the rejection above. The additional elements are further evaluated as a whole with the claim language above. Each element is evaluated with evidence and information from the Specification and again with the claim language as a whole to see if the additional elements amount to significantly more. Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a fumble” as metadata) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant recites on page 5 of the remarks that the “metadata” is not shown in the prior art (for example “fumble”); however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant application defines “metadata” as “[0065]… the historical play data should include metadata about the historical plays, such as time of the live event 102, location, weather, previous plays, opponent, physiological data of the players (including blood pressure, pulse rate, and respiration rate), completed passes by all players, information related to the players such as injuries in the past, touchdowns, player speed, player acceleration, catch probability, information related to trainers of each player, etc. For example, in the American football game, information stored in the historical plays database 114 may include information related to the previous American football games played by the Philadelphia Eagles such as, but not limited to, the weather condition, i.e. during the match, it was cloudy.” Data regarding fumble is simply an example of meta data but does not define it see instant application’s Specification ¶54. If the metadata must include fumble and not just as an example of as the other examples of data included in the metadata, Examiner suggests amending it into the claim language to overcome the art. Furthermore, Morris is no longer relied upon; arguments are now moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Barak Eisenstein et al., (US 20180001204 A1; hereinafter Eisenstein):
Eisenstein teaches a live fantasy sports platform that obtains metadata comprising sets of statistics values that are associated with real-life players’ performance metrics.
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