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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-16 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on October 18, 2024 has been acknowledged.
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 1-16 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.
Specifically, claims 1-16 are directed toward at least one abstract idea without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP 2106, the rationale for this determination is explained below:
Representative claim 1 is directed towards a system, claim 9 is directed towards a method, which are statutory categories of invention.
Although, claim 1 is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim is nonetheless, directed toward an abstract idea. The limitations that set forth this abstract idea recite: generate a plurality of surface sections corresponding to a physical event surface; correlate the event data to at least one of the surface sections using the first position indicator; determine a result value associated with the event data based on the activity indicator; update accumulated result values of one or more users based on the result value and the correlated surface sections; and perform an action based on the updated accumulated result values. These limitations, but for the use of a computer, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, and are thus, directed towards the abstract grouping of Mental Processes in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed as a whole under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements provided by the claim amount to insignificant extra-solution activity and the mere use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. In particular the claim recites the additional elements, wherein the sensors are configured to generate data regarding an event occurring on a physical event surface; receive the event data from the one or more sensors, wherein the event data from the physical event surface includes a first position indicator and an activity indicator, which amounts to obtaining a particular data source and necessary data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). While, the limitations: one or more sensors; at least one memory, wherein the memory comprises instructions executable by one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to; virtual event; virtual event; virtual event, which are recited at a high level of generality are the mere use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Simply adding insignificant extra-solution activities and applying the abstract idea by a computer, is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim only recites additional limitations that are extra-solution activity and uses the computer to apply the abstract idea. Viewing the limitations individually, the sensors are configured to generate data regarding an event occurring on a physical event surface; the receive the event data from the one or more sensors, wherein the event data from the physical event surface includes a first position indicator and an activity indicator, amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, as it is merely data gathering used in implementing the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have recognized performing repetitive calculations; processing, storing data and receiving or transmitting data over a network to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)II; Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Additionally, the limitations generically referring to a system server, a sports data server, also, do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment1. Viewing these limitations as a combination, the additional elements amount to no more than merely applying the exception using generic computer components, executing basic functions of a computer. Merely applying an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the limitations of the claim as a whole, when viewed individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
An analysis of dependent claims 2-8, likewise, do not recite any limitations that would remedy the deficiencies outlined above as they do not add any elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more. While they may slightly narrow the abstract idea by further describing it, they do not make it less abstract. For instance, claims 5-7 are directed towards commercial interactions; claim 8 amounts to extra-solution data outputting activity. Hence, the dependent claims are rejected accordingly. Further still, claims 9-16 suffer from substantially the same deficiencies as outlined with respect to claims 1-8 and are also rejected accordingly.
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 of this title, 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 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puzhevich (US Publication 2018/0311561) in view of Ito (US Publication 2021/0162305).
A. In regards to Claims 1 and 9, Puzhevich discloses an event tracking system and method comprising:
one or more sensors, wherein the sensors are configured to generate data regarding an event occurring on a physical event surface; Puzhevich [0035: data obtained from any number of the plurality of sensors to determine information, such as location, speed, velocity, direction of motion, and/or other information of a respectively tracked person or object; 0072: the data can come from a plurality of sensors deployed within an area of interest (e.g., an area of play); the plurality of sensors can comprise at least one of an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a geo-spatial sensor, a global positioning sensor, and/or the like];
at least one memory, wherein the memory comprises instructions executable by one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: Puzhevich [0068];
receive the event data from the one or more sensors, wherein the event data from the physical event surface includes a first position indicator and an activity indicator; Puzhevich [0041: information tracked for each player can include an identifier for the player (which can be based on identifier(s) of the sensor(s) attached to/worn by the player), a current location of the player, a position of the player, an indication of whether the player is on offense or defense, a current direction of motion for the player, a speed of the player, a velocity of the player, and/or the like];
correlate the event data to at least one of the virtual event surface sections using the first position indicator; Puzhevich [0042: based on a current position of any given player and sensors or other devices defining a geographical area for one or more areas of interest, it can be determined whether a player is playing in the current sporting event, sitting on the bench; 0079: determining, based on the data, that the second participant successfully completed the sporting outcome, such as a goal scored on an opposing team (position and activity)];
determine a result value associated with the event data based on the activity indicator; Puzhevich [0047: credit and/or fault can be assigned to a given player based on a determination that the player was responsible for at least a portion of the event occurring; 0046: the beginning and/or the end of each state can be dictated by the occurrence of an event; a type for any given event can include at least one of a pass, a shot, a foul, a steal or some other change in possession; 0049: a difference between the probability for a new/subsequent state and the previous state can be calculated and/or assigned to the action which caused the transition between the states. The value assigned to the action can be distributed among one or more of the players];
Puzhevich does not specifically disclose, generate a plurality of virtual event surface sections corresponding to a physical event surface; this is disclosed by Ito [0030: player objects are disposed in a virtual area of a game; the player objects are objects that appear in a virtual area used tier a game played by a plurality of players on the game device; 0046: the play area is a flat area of width 8.0 m×depth 4.0 m, and the display has a flat display area of width 8.0 m×height 2.5 m; however, the respective sizes of the play area and the display may be set variously in accordance with the environment in which the game device is installed];
update accumulated result values of one or more users based on the result value and the correlated virtual event surface sections; this is disclosed by Ito [0059: parameter updating unit updates a parameter associated with the game object each time the collision detection unit detects a collision between one of the plurality of player objects and the game object; and in the case of accumulated damage, integration processing is performed each time a collision is detected; the updated game parameter is not limited to a parameter associated with the game object, and for example, an amount of damage inflicted on an enemy object, which is associated with each of the players of the game, may be updated instead];
and perform an action based on the updated accumulated result values. This is disclosed by Ito [0059: amount of damage inflicted on an enemy object, which is associated with each of the players of the game is updated].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Puzhevich with the teachings from Ito with the motivation to provide a game device with an object detection unit for detecting positions of a plurality of real objects from a predetermined area, an object control unit for disposing a game object in a virtual area, a collision detection unit for detecting, in the virtual area, collisions between each of a plurality of player objects, which are disposed in positions corresponding to the detected positions of the plurality of real objects. Ito [Abstract].
Claims 2-5, 8, 10-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puzhevich (US Publication 2018/0311561) in view of Ito (US Publication 2021/0162305) in further view of O'Dea (US Publication 2013/0095909).
A. In regards to Claims 2 and 10, Puzhevich does not specifically disclose, wherein providing a plurality of virtual event surface sections corresponding to a physical event surface comprises segmenting a virtual representation of the physical event surface into the plurality of virtual event surface sections such that each of the virtual event surface sections corresponds to a unique area of the physical event surface. This is disclosed by O'Dea [0023: the field is divided into a plurality of sections, such as "Goal", "Behind", with each of the sections having an associated number representing the payout should a wager have been placed for that section and play of the corresponding real sports game entered that section].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Puzhevich with the teachings from O'Dea with the motivation to enable players to participate in the playing of a reality based sports games with more rapid feedback, and enjoyment. O'Dea [0006].
B. In regards to Claims 3 and 11, Puzhevich does not specifically disclose, wherein the event data is received in real-time. This is disclosed by O'Dea [0045: invention provides a user with enhanced enjoyment of watching and participating in a real sports game as it is being played in real time]. The motivation being the same as stated in claim 2.
C. In regards to Claims 4 and 12, Puzhevich does not specifically disclose, wherein the event data further includes a second position indicator, and wherein the system is further configured to correlate the event data to at least another one of the virtual event surface sections using the second position indicator, determine another result value associated with the event data based on the activity indicator, and update the accumulated result values of the one or more users based on the another result value and the correlated virtual event surface sections. This is disclosed by O'Dea [0023: a player can place wagers in one or more sections of the field. Then as the corresponding real game is played, between St. Kilda and Collingwood, causing the play to result in one of the sections of the field, then the pay-off or settlement of the wagers occurs. Then play resumes, and players can again place wagers on one or more of the sections. Once play has entered a section and settlement of the wager occurs, play resumes, with the payout from the sections being potentially different from previous payout]. The motivation being the same as stated in claim 2.
D. In regards to Claims 5 and 13, Puzhevich does not specifically disclose, wherein the action comprises providing an award to one or more of the one or more users. This is disclosed by O'Dea [0039: as players play in these rooms, and win, virtual points are awarded to the winners.]. The motivation being the same as stated in claim 2.
E. In regards to Claims 8 and 16, Puzhevich does not specifically disclose, display the virtual event surface sections, such that the virtual event surface sections corresponding to the event occurring on the physical event surface are indicated differently from other virtual event surface sections; this is disclosed by O'Dea [0020: for example, on the playing field shown in FIG. 1, there are sections labeled (from left to right on the lower portion of the field): "TD"; "0-28"; "50-20"; "20-0" and "TD" with associate numbers of "42"; "25"; "125"; "205" and "250" for each of those sections.];
and provide information about the event occurring on the physical event surface through the corresponding virtual event surface sections. This is disclosed by O'Dea [0031: in real play between Manchester Union and Arsenal, the ball on the field of play has moved to a lower portion of the midfield line. This movement of the ball is reflected in the display of a representation of the field. As a result, changes in the odds for the various sections occurs and the payout for the different sections changes]. The motivation being the same as stated in claim 2.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puzhevich (US Publication 2018/0311561) in view of Ito (US Publication 2021/0162305) in further view of Mavromatis (US Publication 2023/0195855).
A. In regards to Claims 6 and 14, Puzhevich does not specifically disclose, wherein each of the virtual event surface sections corresponds to a non-fungible token (NFT). This is disclosed by Mavromatis [0047: receive first sensor data from a user device of an observer viewing object or from location sensors local to object; generate a location-specific NFT depicting all or a portion of object].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Puzhevich with the teachings from Mavromatis with the motivation to enable a user device of a user occupying a spectator seat to generate a location-specific NFT depicting an event occurring during an activity-performed at the venue (e.g., a scoring play, from the perspective of the user), and mint a location-specific NFT for that user. Mavromatis [0038].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Errol CARVALHO whose telephone number is (571) 272-9987. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30-7:00 Alt Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571-270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/E CARVALHO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
1 See, Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2360 (2014) (noting that none of the hardware recited “offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,’ that is, implementation via computers” (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010))).