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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Non-Statutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,145,046 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are broader than the patented claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gershey (Pub. No.: US 2022/0174342 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gershey teaches a computer-implemented method (Abstract, method and system for self-correcting match states) comprising:
receiving, by a computing system, event data corresponding to a game, the event data including one or more events occurring within the game (Fig. 5 Step 405, para [0052] and [0093], “Referring to FIGS. 2, 3 and 5 contemporaneously, the live data feed 60 can be received by the error correction unit 170 (Step 405) and monitored for an update for an underlying event (Step 410).”);
utilizing, by the computing system, an artificial intelligence anomaly engine to analyze the event data and flag a potential error in the event data (Fig. 5, step 420, para [0093], “The detected update can be compared against the corresponding current match state and a prediction made, by the error correction unit 170, regarding the accuracy of all the elements of the update (Step 420).”);
generating, by the computing system, a ticket corresponding to the potential error flagged in the event data (Fig. 5 step 420, the system generates a confidence score TH3 that indicates a potential error);
assigning, by the computing system, the ticket to a first quality assurance agent to resolve (Fig. 5, step 440, the system assigns the data to the error correction system 13 to correct the data);
receiving, by the computing system, an indication that the ticket has been reviewed by the first quality assurance agent (para [0098], “The match state data can be updated to indicate that the record containing the anomaly has been corrected (Step 450).”); and
providing, by the computing system, reviewed event data to an end user based on receiving the indication, wherein the reviewed event data is a version of the event data (Fig. 1 – Fig. 2, user communication device para [0074], the corrected data will be stored in the database and be available for the end user.).
Regarding claim 9, recites a CRM that performs the method of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 17, recites a system that performs the method of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gershey (Pub. No.: US 2022/0174342 A1) in view of Schwartz (Pub. No.: US 2020/0230501 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Gershey teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein providing, by the computing system, the reviewed event data to the end user based on receiving the indication, but fails to teach wherein the reviewed event data is the version of the event data comprises:
providing, by the computing system, the reviewed event data to one or more downstream prediction models to generate one or more artificial intelligence insights associated with the game.
However, in the same field of sport event, Schwartz teaches a system and method for providing game data 212, 214, 228 to a machine learning module 220 to predict a possible outcome of the game. See Fig. 2A - 2B, Fig. 8 – Fig. 10 and para [0144].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gershey’s system and method to provide the corrected game/match data to a machine learning module taught by Schwartz to predict a possible outcome of the game/match by using the corrected data to improve prediction accuracy.
Regarding claim 15, recites a CRM that performs the method of claim 7. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 8, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gershey (Pub. No.: US 2022/0174342 A1) in view of Thangavel (Pub. No.: US 2022/0334571 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Gershey teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but fails to teach the computer-implemented method further comprising:
generating, by the computing system, a dashboard for the first quality assurance agent, wherein the dashboard indicates a number of pending tickets, a number of completed tickets, and one or more metrics associated with the completed tickets.
However, in the same field of ticket monitoring, Thangavel teaches a dashboard that indicates a number of tickets in progress, a number of completed tickets and description of the resolution or the P1-P4 indicators. See Fig. 6 and para [0047] – [0051].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gershey’s system and method to create a dashboard that displays a number of tickets in progress, a number of completed tickets and description of the resolution or the P1-P4 indicators as taught by Thangavel to provide a consolidated view of the error correction progress.
Regarding claim 16, recites a CRM that performs the method of claim 8. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, recites a system that performs the method of claim 8. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHEN Y WU whose telephone number is (571)272-5711. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10AM-6PM, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/ZHEN Y WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685