DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in reply to application no. 18/593,110, filed 1 March 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and are considered below.
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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims lie within statutory categories of invention, as each is directed to a method (process), system (machine), or non-transitory computer readable medium (manufacture). The claim(s) recite(s) gathering data about sporting events, predicting an outcome of a portion of an event in no particular manner, and determining probabilities related to the outcome of the event in no particular manner.
Making predictions is human mental activity which requires no technology at all and was quite routine before there was any such thing as a computer. People have been wagering on sporting events based on their own mental evaluation of likely outcomes for century. This presents no practical difficulty and requires no technology at all. Therefore the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because aside from the bare inclusion of a generic computer in some of the claims, nothing is done beyond what was set forth above, which does not go beyond using a generic computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As the claims only manipulate data relating to possible outcomes of sporting events, historical data about such events, and the like, they do not improve the “functioning of a computer” or of “any other technology or technical field”. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). They do not apply the abstract idea “with, or by use of a particular machine”, MPEP § 2106.05(b), as the below-cited Guidance is clear that a generic computer is not the particular machine envisioned.
They do not effect a “transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing”, MPEP § 2106.05(c). First, such data, being intangible, are not a particular article at all. Second, the claimed manipulation is neither transformative nor reductive; as the courts have pointed out, in the end, data are still data.
They do not apply the abstract idea “in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking [it] to a particular technological environment”, MPEP § 2106.05(e), as the lack of technical and algorithmic detail in the claims is so as not to go beyond such a general linkage.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional claim limitations, where present, considered individually and as an ordered combination, are insufficient to elevate an otherwise-ineligible claim.
Claim 1 has no additional elements at all and could literally be performed with pen and paper. Claims 14 and 19, taken together, include a processor and memory storing instructions. These elements are recited at a high degree of generality and the specification does not meaningfully limit them, such that a generic computer will suffice.
It only performs generic computer functions of accessing data and nondescriptly manipulating data. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, without an inventive concept, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The claim limitations when considered as an ordered combination – a generic computer performing a possibly-chronological sequence of abstract steps – do nothing more than when they are analyzed individually.
The other independent claims are simply different embodiments but are likewise directed to, at most, a generic computer performing, essentially, the same process. The dependent claims further do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea: claims 2-8, 10, 15-18 and 20 are simply further descriptive of the type of information being manipulated; claim 9 simply recites output; claims 11 and 12 simply recite further, abstract manipulation of data, and claim 13 simply recites iteration.
The claims are not patent eligible. For further guidance please see MPEP § 2106.03 – 2106.07(c) (formerly referred to as the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance”, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 55 (7 January 2019, revised October 2019)).
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schwartz et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0234543)
With regard to Claim 1:
A method for generating coupled play, drive, and game outcome predictions for a sporting event, the method comprising:
inputting features for a sporting event into an initial model, the input features including historical game data and in-game data; [0033; historical data are used; 0004; data from a current competition are used]
determining a predicted outcome for at least one upcoming play with the initial model; [0004; a prediction is made of the “probability of a next event occurring at the live sport event” such as making a “goal or “touchdown”]
determining, using the input features and predicted outcome, a predicted probability of each team winning the sporting event; [0034; a “win probability” for a team is determined; as one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time would have known, the win probability for the opponent is simply the win probability for the first team subtracted from the number 1] and
determining a probability of success for an action in the at least one upcoming play of the sporting event. [0004 as cited above]
Referring to a software subcomponent or mathematical object by name, such as “initial model” in this claim, “drive score probability model” in claim 4, and so on, is considered mere labeling and given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 2:
The method of claim 1, wherein the in-game data comprises at least one of a time left for a remaining portion of the sporting event, a current point total, a current point differential, a current down and distance to go, a number of timeouts remaining, and/or a team in possession. [Sheet 10, Fig. 9]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1, as it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 3:
The method of claim 1, wherein the historical game data includes a repository of historical team and player data for one or more sporting events. [0003; historical data of “all the players of a team” is tracked]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1, as it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 4:
The method of claim 1, wherein the input model includes:
a play probability model, the play probability model being configured to predict a probability of a particular play outcome occurring in the sporting event; [0133; a prediction is made regarding whether a pass or run is to be made]
a drive score probability model, the drive score probability model being configured to generate a probability of a particular score outcome occurring on a drive in the sporting event; [0004 as cited above] and
a drive remaining model, the drive remaining model being configured to predict a number of remaining drives for each team in the sporting event. [0152; the “difference in the number of drives between [a] play and [a] next score” reads on determining at least two drives, counting a current drive, remain]
With regard to Claim 5:
The method of claim 4, wherein the predicted outcome includes: the probability of the particular play outcome occurring in the sporting event, the probability of the particular score outcome occurring on the drive in the sporting event, and/or the predicted number of remaining drives for each team in the sporting event. [id.]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 4, as it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 6:
The method of claim 5, wherein the predicted outcome for at least one upcoming play includes each of a set of play outcomes and a corresponding probability of each of the set of play outcomes being performed based on a current down and yardage from a first down. [Sheet 10, Fig. 9]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 5, as it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 7:
The method of claim 5, wherein predicted outcome for the drive includes each of a set of drive outcomes and a corresponding probability of each of the set of drive outcomes based on a number of yards from a goal line. [id.]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 5, as it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 8:
The method of claim 4, wherein the play probability model includes a random forest classifier, wherein the drive score probability model includes a multi-layer perceptron, and the drive remaining model includes a multi-layer perceptron. [0093; a “random forest algorithm” is used for “classification”; 0092; a neural network classifier may be used including multiple layers such as a nearest neighbor algorithm and a clustering model, which reads on a multi-layer perceptron]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 4, which is directed to a method. This claim merely recites that models “include” various things, which is open-ended and means the models may include other objects, and any use of the model can be based entirely on the other objects. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 9:
The method of claim 4, further including:
generating an expected number of points to be scored on a particular drive in the sporting event using an expected points model, the expected points model using the outcome of the drive score probability model to generate the expected number of points. [0034; an “expected points model” makes such a prediction]
With regard to Claim 10:
The method of claim 4, wherein the probability of each team winning the sporting events is determined by a live win probability model, the live win probability model including a multi-layer perceptron, the live win probability model receiving outputs from the drive score probability model and drive remaining model. [0004, 0092 as cited above in regard to claims 1 and 8]
With regard to Claim 13:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining updated in-game data during the sporting event; and
updating the predicted outcome of the sporting event. [0036; “updating these odds in real time to reflect current situations and statistics of a game”]
With regard to Claim 14:
A system for generating coupled play, drive, and game outcome predictions for a sporting event, the system comprising:
a non-transitory computer readable medium configured to store processor-readable instructions; [0016; “a computer program product embodied on a computer readable storage medium”] and
a processor operatively connected to the non-transitory computer readable medium, and configured to execute the instructions to perform operations [0016; a “processor” is configured to “execute [the] instructions” of the program] comprising:
inputting features for a sporting event into an initial model, the input features including historical game data and in-game data; [0033; historical data are used; 0004; data from a current competition are used]
determining a predicted outcome for at least one upcoming play with the initial model; [0004; a prediction is made of the “probability of a next event occurring at the live sport event” such as making a “goal or “touchdown”]
determining, using the input features and predicted outcome, a predicted probability of each team winning the sporting event; [0034; a “win probability” for a team is determined; as one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time would have known, the win probability for the opponent is simply the win probability for the first team subtracted from the number 1] and
determining a probability of success for an action in the at least one upcoming play of the sporting event. [0004 as cited above]
With regard to Claim 15:
The system of claim 14, wherein the in-game data comprises at least one of a time left for a remaining portion of the sporting event, a current point total, a current point differential, a current down and distance to go, a number of timeouts remaining, and/or a team in possession. [Sheet 10, Fig. 9]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 14, as it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed system. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 16:
The system of claim 14, wherein the historical game data includes a repository of historical team and player data for one or more sporting events. [0003; historical data of “all the players of a team” is tracked]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 14, as it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed system. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 17:
The system of claim 14, wherein the input model includes:
a play probability model, the play probability model being configured to predict a probability of a particular play outcome occurring in the sporting event; [0133; a prediction is made regarding whether a pass or run is to be made]
a drive score probability model, the drive score probability model being configured to generate a probability of a particular score outcome occurring on a drive in the sporting event; [0004 as cited above] and
a drive remaining model, the drive remaining model being configured to predict a number of remaining drives for each team in the sporting event. [0152; the “difference in the number of drives between [a] play and [a] next score” reads on determining at least two drives, counting a current drive, remain]
With regard to Claim 18:
The system of claim 17, wherein the predicted outcome includes: the probability of the particular play outcome occurring in the sporting event, the probability of the particular score outcome occurring on the drive in the sporting event, and/or the predicted number of remaining drives for each team in the sporting event. [id.]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 4, as it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 19:
A non-transitory computer readable medium configured to store processor-readable instructions, wherein when executed by a processor, the instructions perform operations [0016; “a computer program product embodied on a computer readable storage medium” whose instructions are executed by a processor] comprising:
inputting features for a sporting event into an initial model, the input features including historical game data and in-game data; [0033; historical data are used; 0004; data from a current competition are used]
determining a predicted outcome for at least one upcoming play with the initial model; [0004; a prediction is made of the “probability of a next event occurring at the live sport event” such as making a “goal or “touchdown”]
determining, using the input features and predicted outcome, a predicted probability of each team winning the sporting event; [0034; a “win probability” for a team is determined; as one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time would have known, the win probability for the opponent is simply the win probability for the first team subtracted from the number 1] and
determining a probability of success for an action in the at least one upcoming play of the sporting event. [0004 as cited above]
With regard to Claim 20:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 19, wherein the input model includes:
a play probability model, the play probability model being configured to predict a probability of a particular play outcome occurring in the sporting event; [0133; a prediction is made regarding whether a pass or run is to be made]
a drive score probability model, the drive score probability model being configured to generate a probability of a particular score outcome occurring on a drive in the sporting event; [0004 as cited above] and
a drive remaining model, the drive remaining model being configured to predict a number of remaining drives for each team in the sporting event. [0152; the “difference in the number of drives between [a] play and [a] next score” reads on determining at least two drives, counting a current drive, remain]
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) 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz et al. in view of O’Leary et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0287565).
With regard to Claim 11:
The method of claim 1, wherein the sporting event is an American football game, wherein the at least one upcoming play is a two-point conversion in the American football game, and wherein the probability of success for the two-point conversion is determined by a two-point predictor, the two-point predictor performing the steps of:
identifying each of two potential actions capable of being performed, the two potential actions comprising performing an extra point kick and performing an offensive play after scoring of a touchdown;
deriving a success rate of each potential action using the predicted outcome for the at least one upcoming play; and
deriving an updated win percentage of each potential action using the predicted probability of each team winning, wherein the success rate and the updated win percentage of each potential action are used to update the predicted probability of each team winning.
Schwartz teaches the method of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach that the plays considered are a two-point conversion and an extra-point kick, and though it is of no patentable significance as explained below, it is known in the art. O’Leary teaches a play recommendation system for sporting events, particularly football. [abstract] It can determine “whether to try for a two-point conversion”, [0005] making “predictive recommendations”. [0038] It may also make a determination regarding “attempting an extra point after a touchdown”. [0047] It includes a “recommendation to attempt a field goal, punt, or attempt a fourth down conversion”. [abstract] Information may be “updated” or “modified” as a result of “real-time data”. [0046] O’Leary and Schwartz are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for making predictions or recommendations related to specific plays during sporting events.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of O’Leary with that of Schwartz in order to provide game-winning opportunity information to home viewers, as taught by O’Leary; [abstract] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply using O’Leary’s data in place of, or in addition to, that of Schwartz; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1, as it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 12:
The method of claim 1, wherein the sporting event is an American football game, wherein the at least one upcoming play is a fourth-down play in the American football game, and wherein the probability of success for the fourth-down play is determined by a fourth down model, the fourth down model performing the steps of:
identifying each of three potential actions capable of being performed, the actions comprising performing a punt, a field goal attempt, or performing an offensive play;
deriving a success rate of each potential action using the predicted outcome for the at least one upcoming play; [O’Leary, abstract as cited above in regard to claim 11] and
deriving an updated win percentage of each potential action using the predicted probability of each team winning, wherein the success rate and the updated win percentage of each potential action are used to update the predicted probability of each team winning. [O’Leary, 0046 as cited above in regard to claim 11]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7442. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:30.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/SCOTT C ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights