DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/31/2026 has been entered.
In response to Final Communications received 1/5/2026, Applicant, on 3/31/2026, amended Claims 1, 9, 15, and 20. Claims 1-20 are considered in this application, and have been rejected below.
Response to Arguments
Arguments regarding 35 USC §101 Alice – Applicant states the amended limitations and that these amendments are integrated into the specific practical application stating that the claims if taken as a whole would not be a judicial exception. Examiner disagrees as the claims are directed at abstract processes of a “Mental Process” and a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”, as the claims recite limitations for the purposes of Managing Human Behaviors through observations, evaluations, and judgments in the form of managing sporting events, which is clearly both a Mental Process and Method of Organizing Activity as per the rejection below, and this is a mere allegation of eligibility under 101. Further, the claims are not practically integrated, as the claim limitations merely utilize current technologies such as a processor, data sources, memory, etc. to perform the abstract limitations of the claims, similar to that of Alice, essentially “Applying It” for the purpose of managing sporting events. There is no improvement to a technology or any technological process, as the Applicant has not even identified what technology this would be, and the processor, medium, system, and other technologies utilized are not improved. This is “Applying It”, similar to Alice, on a generic computing system, and any purported improvement is part of the abstraction and thus this is not significantly more nor practically integrated.
Applicant asserts that the claims are not directed at an abstract idea, either a Mental Process or Organizing Human Activitiy, by stating the amended limitations of the claims cannot be performed practically in the mind, by stating Cybersource and that the claims are not in one of the enumerated groupings. Examiner disagrees as the claims recite clear abstractions of both mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity as per the rejection below. This is stated clearly by the office action, and managing sporting events can clearly be done in the human mind and is absolutely managing human activity/behaviors, one of the enumerated groupings. Further, this is a mere assertion that the claims are eligible under 101. Applicant does not state how or why these would not be considered abstract under Prong 1, nor why they would be integrated with the limitations to overcome 101 under Prong 2 of the Alice Analysis of the MPEP, or even what technologies have been improved. A human mind can make rankings and predictions of how teams will do, and this is at best an improvement to the abstraction. Further, this is utilization of current technologies to analyze sporting events, as there is no improvement to the prediction model (part of the abstraction), any additional element, any technology, or technological process, and thus “Applying It” similar to Alice, not practically integrated, nor significantly more, and not eligible by the MPEP.
Therefore, the arguments are non-persuasive, the Claims are ineligible as there is no inventive concept, and the rejection of the Claims and their dependents are maintained under 35 USC 101.
Arguments regarding 35 USC §103 – The rejection is hereby removed for the reasons found in the “Allowable Subject Matter” section found below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor.
Claims 1, 9, and 15 recite the limitation of “dynamically updating, via the …”. It is unclear what dynamically updating would be in context of the monetary exchange, as the metes and bounds of this are unclear, the specification is silent as to what dynamically would be, and this would differ person to person as to what is done “dynamically”. For examination purposes the limitation will be taken as “updating, via the…”.
The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the independent Claims they rely on and thus are similarly rejected.
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.
Alice - Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 9, and 15 recite the limitations of receiving historical event data (Receiving Information, an Observation, a Mental Process; Organizing Human Activity, i.e. Tracking Sports and Players; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), identifying an occurrence of an upcoming sporting event corresponding to the one or more agents in the historical event data (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Organizing Human Activity, i.e. Tracking Sports and Players; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), determining context data corresponding to the occurrence of the sporting event (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Organizing Human Activity, i.e. Tracking Sports and Players; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), inputting the context data and the event data into a prediction model configured to output an initial set of strength ratings of each player or team associated with the occurrence of the sporting event (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Organizing Human Activity, i.e. Tracking Sports and Players; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), obtaining a set of market information specifying any of a predicted likelihood of each player or team advancing to a stage of the sporting event or winning the sporting event (Receiving Information, an Observation, a Mental Process; Organizing Human Activity, i.e. Tracking Sports and Players; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), determining an accuracy level for each of the plurality of data sources (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Organizing Human Activity, i.e. Tracking Sports and Players; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), assigning, via the prediction model, one or more weights to each of the plurality of data sources based on the accuracy level of each of the plurality of data sources (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Organizing Human Activity, i.e. Tracking Sports and Players; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), generating the one or more weights, using the prediction model, for the set of market information based on the accuracy level of each of the plurality of data sources (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Organizing Human Activity, i.e. Tracking Sports and Players; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), generating, using the prediction model, a weighted set of market information based on the one or more weights (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Organizing Human Activity, i.e. Tracking Sports and Players; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), receiving, at the prediction model, the weighted set of market information and the initial set of strength ratings (Receiving Information, an Observation, a Mental Process; Organizing Human Activity, i.e. Tracking Sports and Players; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), generating, using the prediction model, an updated set of strength ratings using the set of weighted market information and the initial set of strength ratings (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Organizing Human Activity, i.e. Tracking Sports and Players; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), simulating, by a simulation model, the sporting event using the updated set of strength ratings to generate a set of predictions for each player or team that are part of the sporting event, wherein the set of predictions for each player or team that are part of the sporting event include, for each player or team, a predicted likelihood of the player or team advancing to each stage of the sporting event and/or the player or team winning the sporting event (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Organizing Human Activity, i.e. Tracking Sports and Players; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), generating, via the simulation model, an intermediate set of predictions for each player or team that are part of the sporting event (Transmitting the Analyzed Information, an Evaluation and Judgment, a Mental Process; Organizing Human Activity, i.e. Tracking Sports and Players; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), dynamically updating, via the simulation model, the set of predictions for each player or team that are part of the sporting event with the intermediate set of predictions (Transmitting the Analyzed Information, an Evaluation and Judgment, a Mental Process; Organizing Human Activity, i.e. Tracking Sports and Players; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and generating an output depicting the predictions of each player or team that are part of the sporting event (Transmitting the Analyzed Information, an Evaluation and Judgment, a Mental Process; Organizing Human Activity, i.e. Tracking Sports and Players; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of Organizing Human Activity, i.e. Tracking Sports and Players, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a system, processor, and a memory/computer-readable medium, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of Organizing Human Activity to Track Sporting events. For example, identifying an occurrence of an upcoming sporting event and generating strengths of each team and player encompasses a coach, player, bookie, or sports analyst looking for games in a paper, and then analyzing the teams and their rosters, which is an observation, evaluation, and judgment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for Managing Human Activity, i.e. Tracking Sporting Events and Players, a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The system, memory, processors, plurality of data sources, tracking system configured to record one or more agent motions on a playing surface and one or more object motions on the playing surface, and computer readable media are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the receiving and transmitting steps above are insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification in Fig. 7A shows:
PNG
media_image1.png
307
699
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Which shows that any computer, desktop, smartphone, etc. can be used to perform the abstract limitations, and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies. For the receiving and transmitting steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the system, processors, etc., nor the receiving or transmitting steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent Claims 1 and 15 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them as in Claim 15, such as by combining data from each of the multiple sources of market information, which is also part of the abstraction, with the additional element of a computer-readable medium which is highly generic when considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice analysis of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-19 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with no new additional elements and any being used being highly generic when considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice analysis of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 have overcome the prior art and would be allowable if amended to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections.
The closest prior art of record are Olson (U.S. Publication No. 2015/006,5214), Ehrlich (U.S. Publication No. 2012/024,4947), and Horton (U.S. Publication No. 2024/022,0826). Olson, a system and method for providing statistical and crowd sourced predictions, teaches a system for updating a set of strength-based ratings for a sporting event using market information, a processor, identifying an occurrence of an upcoming sporting event, generating, using a prediction model, an initial set of strength ratings of each player or team associated with the sporting event, obtaining a set of market information specifying any of a predicted likelihood of each player or team advancing to a stage of the sporting event or winning the sporting event, generating weights for the set of market information based on processing one or more market information sources, generating a weighted set of market information based on the weights, receiving, at the prediction model, the weighted set of market information and the initial set of strength ratings, simulating, by a simulation model, the sporting event using the updated set of strength ratings to generate a set of predictions for each player or team that are part of the sporting event, wherein the set of predictions for each player or team that are part of the sporting event include, for each player or team, a predicted likelihood of the player or team advancing to each stage of the sporting event and/or the player or team winning the sporting event, generating an output depicting the predictions of each player or team that are part of the sporting even, and generating, using the prediction model, an updated set of strength ratings using the set of market information, it does not explicitly state these are strength ratings are updated. Ehrlich, a system and method for multiple contest scoring with flexible prediction, teaches updating rankings as well as generating a bracket which is from the initial set of strength ratings and updating rankings as well as generating a bracket which is an illustration of a bracket depicting an initial placement of each player or team in the sporting event. Neither Olsen nor Ehrlich teaches a machine learning model. Horton, a system and method for a transformer neural network for player and team predictions for sports, teaches use of a machine learning model for prediction of sports, and also teaches weighted market information, but it does not teach the receiving of historical data from a tracking system which record agent and object motions on a playing surface, inputting of strength ratings into a model to determine an initial set of strength ratings, and determination of an accuracy level and then using that accuracy level in a prediction model to determine weights. None of the above prior art explicitly teaches receiving of historical data from a tracking system which record agent and object motions on a playing surface, inputting of strength ratings into a model to determine an initial set of strength ratings, and determination of an accuracy level and then using that accuracy level in a prediction model to determine weights, along with the other limitations of the Claims, as Applicant points out on pgs. 5-6 of the Remarks of 3/31/2026, and these are the reasons which adequately reflect the Examiner's opinion as to why Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art of record, and are objected to as provided above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20150065214 A1
Olson; Steven A. et al.
Systems and Methods for Providing Statistical and Crowd Sourced Predictions
US 20120244947 A1
Ehrlich; Michael S.
MULTIPLE CONTEST SCORING WITH FLEXIBLE PREDICTION
US 20240312287 A1
Khosla; Vinod
METHODS OF SIMULATING GAMEPLAY
US 20240296358 A1
Haupt; Lucas et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR A COUPLED PLAY, DRIVE, AND MATCH OUTCOME PREDICTION SYSTEM FOR LIVE SPORTS
US 20240282167 A1
AMAITIS; Lee et al.
Wagering on Event Outcomes During the Event
US 20240220826 A1
Horton; Michael John et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR A TRANSFORMER NEURAL NETWORK FOR PLAYER AND TEAM PREDICTIONS FOR SPORTS
US 20240216780 A1
Horton; Michael John et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR COMBINING TOP-DOWN AND BOTTOM-UP TEAM AND PLAYER PREDICTION FOR SPORTS
US 20240070770 A1
Marko; Christian et al.
System and Method for Real-Time Minting and Enrichment of Sports Data
US 20240031619 A1
JAYARAM; Vivek et al.
DETERMINING TACTICAL RELEVANCE AND SIMILARITY OF VIDEO SEQUENCES
US 20240005057 A1
LACKEY; Bradley Curtis et al.
REPRESENTATIVE SIMULATION RESULTS FOR CORRELATED VARIABLES
US 20220270004 A1
Ruiz; Hector et al.
Micro-Level and Macro-Level Predictions in Sports
US 9740984 B2
Lucey; Patrick et al.
Characterizing motion patterns of one or more agents from spatiotemporal data
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM M-F.
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, BETH BOSWELL can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625B 5/9/2026
Prosecution Insights