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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/14/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 8 are pending.
Claims 1 – 8 have been amended.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 and dependent claims 2 - 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim recites the limitation of “the current play” in line 11. However, the claim earlier only makes reference to a “current action” and “the current action”. It is not clear if “the current play” and “the current action” are referring to the same data or if they are different.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the current play" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
This subject matter eligibility analysis follows the latest guidance for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1 - 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claims 1 – 8 are drawn to a method.
Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1: Does the Claim recite an Abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Claims 1 - 8 are exemplary because they require substantially the same operative limitations of the remaining claims (reproduced below.) Examiner has underlined the claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, discussed in detail in the paragraphs that follow.
1. (Currently Amended) A method comprising:
collecting data about a past action in the live sporting event;
determining that the past action has ended;
collecting sensor data about real-time positioning of a current action in the live sporting event until at least one of a threshold amount of data is collected or a threshold time is reached;
transmitting the data to a cloud;
performing real-time analysis in the cloud by comparing the collected data about the end of the past action and the collected sensor data about the current action to historical play data;
determining odds, in the cloud, on a future action of the live sporting event that will begin after the current play is completed, the odds determined based on an analysis of the historical play data; and
transmitting the odds from the cloud and displaying the odds on a user device before the future action occurs.
The claims recite italicized limitations that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, namely, Mental Processes. For example, the italicized limitations are drawn to the collection of data regarding past current actions of a sporting event, comparing the collected data to historical play data, determining odds on a future action of the live sporting event, and transmitting and displaying odds to a user. This also represents a mental process namely a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). For example, a human utilizing pen and paper can observe a sporting event occurring, collect data regarding past, current actions, compare that data to historical play data such as statistics and make a comparison of the data to determine odds of a future event occurring and displaying that to a user.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
Although the claims recite additional limitations, these limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require additional limitations as follow, (emphasis added): a cloud, sensors, user devices and databases.
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, since the additional limitations, individually or in combination, are indistinguishable from a computer used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, the analysis continues to Step 2B, below.
Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, as pointed out above, the claimed invention recites additional elements facilitating implementation of the abstract idea. Applicant has claimed cloud, sensors, user devices and databases. However, all of these elements viewed individually and as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
As the Alice court cautioned, citing Flook, patent eligibility cannot depend simply on the draftsman’s art. Here, amending the claims with generic computing elements does not (in this Examiner’s opinion), confer eligibility.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, US 2019/0355204 to Edgar et al establishes that these additional elements are generic:
A computing device may comprise conventional components, such as a
processor, a local memory such as RAM, non-volatile memory such as FLASH memory,
long term memory such as a hard disk, a network adaptor, and any number of input
and/or output devices such as a keyboard, mouse, monitor, touch screen, microphone,
speaker, motion sensor, orientation sensor, infrared sensor, RFID/NFC sensor, electrical
current sensor, light sensor, and the like. The various memories of the computing device
may facilitate the storage of one or more computer instructions, such as a software
routine and/or software program, which may be executable by the processor to perform
the methods of the invention. A computing device may comprise an embedded
processor in such as a comfort management control device, a personal computer, a
server, a mobile phone, a smart phone, a tablet computer, a kiosk, a portable computer,
a vehicle-embedded computer, and the like. Further, the databases, systems, and/or
components of the present technology may include any combination of databases,
systems, and/or components at a single location or at multiple locations. Each database,
system, and/or component of the present technology may comprise any suitable
security features, such as firewalls, access codes, encryption, de-encryption,
compression, decompression, and the like. (Edgar et al 0073)
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, the Applicant’s own specification establishes that these additional elements are generic pertaining to sensor and the collected data.
[0061] Further, embodiments may include a plurality of sensors 104 that may be used such as motion sensors, temperature sensors, humidity sensors, optical sensors and cameras such as an RGB-D camera which is a digital camera capable of 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 on other markers on the field of play. Imaging devices may also be used as tracking devices such as player tracking that provides statistical information through real-time X, Y positioning of players and X, Y, Z positioning of the ball.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, US 2013/0310124 to Hauck establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0109] FIG. 13 illustrates how a multi-player game may be played between geographically dispersed players D-H (1302-1306). The "cloud" 1300 is a well-known term describing remote services available on the Internet, for example to store documents or to coordinate multi-player games. Each player 1302-1306 logs onto a remote game server 1301 which supervises the formation of multi-player groups and coordinates the rounds between the players as will be described.
Therefore, these elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Moreover, the claims do not recite improvements to another technology or technical field. Nor, do the claims improve the functioning of the underlying computer itself -- they merely recite generic computing elements. Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing: the underlying computing elements remain the same.
Concerning preemption, the Federal Circuit has said in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of cffDNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
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 and 4 - 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schnurr et al (US 2017/0061314) in view of Shore et al (US 2015/0287285).
As per claim 1, Schnurr discloses:
collecting data about a past action in the live sporting event; (Schnurr discloses the collection of data related to past action of the game wherein the data pertains which team has possession of the football and how much yardage is left to reach the endzone) (Schnurr 0070, 0071)
determining that the past action has ended; (Schnurr discloses the determination that the previous action or play has ended and there is “68 yards to reach the endzone”) (Schnurr 0070, 0071)
collecting sensor data about real-time positioning of a current action in the live sporting event until at least one of a threshold amount of data is collected or a threshold time is reached; (Schnurr discloses the collection of positional information related to players, teams, balls and/or game objects on the field of play by means of the utilization of sensor data (Schnurr 0032, 0033) wherein the system displays to the user the positional data relating to a team and/or player lineup formations prior to a threshold of time such as a play clock that a team must abide by to snap the ball to thereby begin the next play) (Schnurr 0032, 0033, Play clock shown in Fig 3 and 5 along with player positions on the field). Schnurr further states “Client computing system 218 may be configured to, for each of two or more of the plurality of football games, receive a prediction for an upcoming play of that football game prior to commencement of the upcoming play.” (Schnurr 0059). Thus the system must at some point determine that it has a threshold amount of collected information to provide the prediction to the client prior to the upcoming play starting.)
transmitting the data to a cloud; (Schnurr discloses the transmitting of data to a server or a communication network as used in the Applicant’s specification at para. 0062) (Schnurr 0026, 0030, 0031, 0033, 0034, 0097, 0106)
performing real-time analysis in the cloud by comparing the collected data about the end of the past action and the collected sensor data about the current action to historical play data; (Schnurr discloses the real-time comparison of data about the end of the play (i.e. 68 yards to reach endzone), and sensor data (i.e. a particular detected player is on the field such as Marshawn Lynch) to a prediction worker role machine 220, which utilizes current data about the current game state “ a current game state of the football game (e.g., clock, down, quarter, score, possession, yards to go)” (Schnurr 0052), wherein the “Prediction worker role machine 220 may be configured to load the saved prediction models 210 and query the prediction models using the current game state to make predictions.” (Schnurr 0053). Schnurr further discloses that the prediction models are trained with historical play data (Schnurr 0041 – 0050)
determining …, in the cloud, on a future action of the live sporting event that will begin after the current play is completed, the odds determined based on an analysis of the historical play data; and transmitting the … from the cloud and displaying the … on a user device before the future action occurs. (Schnurr discloses the determination and display of a prediction and probability percentage on a future play or event that will begin after the current action or pre-snap event is completed based upon the analysis of the historical play data) (Schnurr 0071, 0072)
Schnurr discloses the displaying of a probability percentage of the next upcoming play, but does not disclose the displaying of the odds.
In a similar field of endeavor, Shore discloses the displaying of the odds of a future sporting event occurring to aid a user in making a wager prediction (Shore 0091, 0092)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Schnurr in view of Shore to use a known technique to modify similar systems in the same way by displaying odds of a next play or prediction occurring to a user. The displaying of odds on a future outcome occurring to a user will aid them in determining which prediction is most advantageous to them in terms of wagering.
As per claim 2, wherein the future action is a next action that will take place at a time following the current action. (Schnurr discloses the prediction being an action that will occur after the current action (i.e. pre-snap activity)) (Schnurr 0070, 0071)
As per claim 4, further comprising determining a threshold amount of data or threshold time on a current action before the comparing of the collected data about the past action and the collected sensor data about the current action to historical play data. (Schnurr discloses the collection of positional information related to players, teams, balls and/or game objects on the field of play by means of the utilization of sensor data (Schnurr 0032, 0033) wherein the system displays to the user the positional data relating to a team and/or player lineup formations prior to a threshold of time such as a play clock that a team must abide by to snap the ball to thereby begin the next play) (Schnurr 0032, 0033, Play clock shown in Fig 3 and 5 along with player positions on the field). Schnurr further states “Client computing system 218 may be configured to, for each of two or more of the plurality of football games, receive a prediction for an upcoming play of that football game prior to commencement of the upcoming play.” (Schnurr 0059). Thus the system must at some point determine that it has a threshold amount of collected information first in order to provide the prediction to the client prior to the upcoming play starting.)
As per claim 5, wherein the threshold amount of data is an amount of data regarding the current action that at least meets a predetermined number of characteristics of a predetermined number of actions in a historical plays database. (Schnurr discloses the determination of an amount of data such as a current game state that comprises how many yards to endzone that is used to aid in the generation of a prediction (Schnurr 0070) and comparing this this characteristic to parsed historical data that is used to train a prediction trainer to generate prediction models, wherein the parsed data is data that relates to how many “yards to goal line” or “yards to go” (Schnurr 0042, 0043, 0048, 0049).
As per claim 6, wherein the data regarding the current action is collected by one or more sensors (Schnurr 0032, 0033)
As per claim 7, where the sensor data is RFID data. (Schnurr 0032, 0033)
As per claim 8, where the sensor data is camera data. (Schnurr 0032, 0033)
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schnurr et al (US 2017/0061314) in view of Shore et al (US 2015/0287285) in view of “Match-manipulation in football - the challenges faced in Finland” by Johanna Peurala (hereinafter “Peurala”)
As per claim 3, Schnurr fails to disclose:
wherein the future action is a substitution of a player who will enter the live sporting event at a time following the current action.
In a similar field of endeavor, Peurala discloses “Some sports-betting opera-tors accept bets on the number of yellow/red cards, or the first or last player to receive these cards, the number of minutes of additional time, the name of the first substitute to come onto the pitch, and so on.” (Peurala Page 4 par 3)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Schnurr in view of Peurala to use a known betting technique to modify similar systems in the same way by accepting bets upon a substitution of a particular player after a certain amount of time. In this way the gaming system will appeal to a wider variety of users who like to bet on many different aspects of sporting event.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 - 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Please see above rejection in view of newly found references to Schnurr, Shore and Peurala.
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 the Applicant argues:
“As set forth in M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(a)(2)-III-A, claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations. See SRIInt'l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Claim 1, as amended, recites: "collecting sensor data about real-time positioning of a current action in the live sporting event until at least one of a threshold amount of data is collected or a threshold time is reached .... performing real-time analysis by comparing the collected data about the past action and the collected sensor data about the current action to historical play data
Paragraph [0061] provides support by disclosing "tracking devices such as player tracking that provides statistical information through real-time X, Y positioning of players and X, Y, Z positioning of the ball." Paragraph [0062] further discloses "real-time analysis on the type of play and the result of the play." Also see "real-time analysis on the type of play and the result of a play or action" in paragraph [0066]. The human mind is not equipped to perform this subject matter.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that the a human is more than equipped to utilize pen and paper and observe a sporting event that is occurring, analyze the real-time positioning of athletes involved in the sporting event such as x and y positions, and provide a real-time analysis of the play to make a determination of odds that a particular event will occur in the future based upon the tracked data and historical data. This type of analyzation has been done for many years in the realm of bookmaking and sports betting.
Applicant further states:
The performance of real-time analysis based upon real- time positioning improves the functioning of a computer by permitting prompt display of the odds on a user device and increasing the accuracy of the displayed odds.
Further, as discussed and shown during the examiner interview, the real-time positioning of the players, in conjunction with numerous other aspects of the ongoing game (such as time remaining, score, field location, and specific players) is utilized in real-time with respect to a database of over two million previous football plays with known results. Thus, while it is understood that a human could observe a scenario in a sporting event and make a general prediction about what may occur, it would be impossible for a human mind to review a catalog of millions of past plays, specifically narrow them down to plays that match the current situation/conditions of the live game, and provide specific odds and or other predictive data based on that information.
The Examiner notes that this line of reasoning is not applicable as the Applicant is imbuing the claims with features that are not even claimed or presented. Regarding the issue of practical application the Examiner notes that beyond the mere allegation that a functioning of the computer is improved, the Applicant fails to disclose how exactly the displaying of odds more “promptly” or more “accurately” actually improves the functioning of the computer. These are more akin to improvements to a user experience while playing a wagering game or prediction game.
The Applicant further states:
Finally, it must be appreciated that the collected sensor data is retrieved from the players, equipment and other elements at the sporting event. This data is then transmitted to a cloud where the processing takes place and the odds and associated graphics are generated. The generated odds and graphics are then transmitted from the cloud in substantially real time to a plurality of user devices in order to show the odds and graphics to any number of users in any location in advance
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and first notes that the claims merely state the displaying of odds, not graphics. Secondly the limitations of “a cloud” are additional limitations that are merely used to implement the abstract idea by utilizing conventional generic computing elements that are well known in the art as evidenced by Hauck as identified in the above rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5911. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 4pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/RAW/Examiner, Art Unit 3715 2/19/2026
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715