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 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 claim recites a method comprising: ingesting sports sensor data in real-time, wherein the sports sensor data is captured at a live sporting event. The limitation of ingesting sports sensor data in real-time, wherein the sports sensor data is captured at a live sporting event, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “sensor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “sensor” language, “ingesting” in the context of this claim encompasses a user watching a live sporting event. Similarly, the limitations of: receiving, processing and evaluating are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The same interpretation is applied to the remaining steps in claim 1. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – sensor. The sensor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor implementing a step) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a sensor amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Similar reasoning is applied to claims 2-20.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2021/0134124 A1 to Srinivasan (hereinafter “Srinivasan”) in view of US Publication No. 2018/0099201 A1 to Marty et al. (hereinafter “Marty”).
Concerning claim 1, Srinivasan discloses a method comprising: ingesting sports data in real-time, wherein the sports data is captured at a live sporting event (Abstract, paragraph [0048] – sports data is captured in real time during a live sporting event);
rendering a graphical user interface to provide a depiction of at least a portion of the sports sensor data in real-time as the live sporting event occurs (paragraphs [0048], [0049], [0058] – portion of sports data is presented on user interface);
receiving a plurality of sports play predictions from a plurality of users, wherein each of the plurality of sports play predictions comprises a prediction of an upcoming sports play in the live sporting event (paragraphs [0048], [0049], [0058], [0061]-[0067] – users provide predictions on sporting event);
processing the plurality of sports play predictions prior to the upcoming sports play occurring in the live sporting event (paragraphs [0048], [0049], [0058], [0061]-[0067] – predictions are processed); and
in response to the upcoming sports play occurring in the live sporting event, evaluating the plurality of sports play predictions against an actual sports play that occurred in the live sporting event to identify which of the plurality of sports play predictions correctly predicted the actual sports play (paragraphs [0048], [0049], [0058], [0061]-[0067] – prediction are evaluated and paid out based on wager).
Srinivasan lacks details on, however, Marty discloses sports sensor data (paragraphs [0018], [0025], [0029], [0030], [0060]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sensors described by Marty in the system of Srinivasan in order to collect up to date data of the plays.
Concerning claim 2, Srinivasan discloses further comprising assessing the sports sensor data to calculate one or more predicted upcoming sports plays to occur at the live sporting event; wherein at least a portion of the plurality of sports play predictions comprises a selection of one of the one or more predicted upcoming sports plays (paragraphs [0048], [0049], [0058], [0061]-[0067] – predictions are made and paid out when correct).
Concerning claim 3, Srinivasan discloses further comprising receiving a plurality of input wagers from the plurality of users, wherein each of the plurality of input wagers is associated with one user and one of the plurality of sports play predictions (paragraphs [0048], [0049], [0058], [0061]-[0067] – users make predictions).
Concerning claim 4, Srinivasan discloses further comprising processing the sports sensor data with a neural network trained to predict one or more predicted upcoming plays based on the sports sensor data (paragraphs [0048], [0049], [0058], [0061]-[0067] – ai is used to predict plays).
Concerning claim 5, Srinivasan discloses wherein the neural network is trained on a plurality of prior plays and prior sensor data associated with the plurality of prior plays (paragraphs [0048], [0049], [0058], [0061]-[0067] – ai uses previous data).
Concerning claim 6, Srinivasan discloses further comprising calculating a minimum wager for each of the one or more predicted upcoming plays, wherein the minimum wager is a minimum value required to be provided by a user for the user to wager that one of the one or more predicted upcoming plays will occur in the live sporting event (paragraphs [0048], [0049], [0058], [0061]-[0067], [0244] – minimum wager is required).
Concerning claim 7, Srinivasan discloses wherein calculating the minimum wager comprises: determining an historical frequency for a play option of the one or more predicted upcoming plays; determining a current time in the live sporting event relative to a length of the live sporting event; and determining an historical likelihood for the play option of the one or more predicted upcoming plays to occur at the current time in the live sporting event (paragraphs [0047]-[0049], [0058], [0061]-[0067] – historical stats are used to determine upcoming plays).
Concerning claim 8, Srinivasan lacks details on, however, Marty discloses wherein the sports sensor data comprises data output by one or more of a location sensor or an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor attached to a sports player engaging in the live sporting event (paragraphs [0018], [0025], [0029], [0030], [0060]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sensors described by Marty in the system of Srinivasan in order to collect up to date data of the plays.
Concerning claim 9, Srinivasan lacks details on, however, Marty discloses wherein the sports sensor data comprises data output by one or more of a location sensor or an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor attached to a ball or tool utilized during the live sporting event (paragraphs [0018], [0025], [0029], [0030], [0060]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sensors described by Marty in the system of Srinivasan in order to collect up to date data of the plays.
Concerning claim 10, Srinivasan lacks details on, however, Marty discloses wherein the sports sensor data comprises data output by one or more of a global positioning system (GPS) sensor, an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor, a biosensor, a radio-frequency identification (RFID) sensor, an ultra-wideband (UWB) sensor, or a multi-electromechanical systems (MEMS) sensor (paragraphs [0018], [0025], [0029], [0030], [0060]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sensors described by Marty in the system of Srinivasan in order to collect up to date data of the plays.
Concerning claim 11, Srinivasan lacks details on, however, Marty discloses further comprising processing the sports sensor data with an artificial intelligence and/or machine learning (AI/ML) engine comprising a large language model (LLM), wherein the AI/ML engine outputs a plaintext explanation of a sports play that occurred at the live sporting event (paragraphs [0018], [0025], [0029], [0030], [0060], [0104]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sensors described by Marty in the system of Srinivasan in order to collect up to date data of the plays.
Concerning claim 12, Srinivasan discloses wherein rendering the graphical user interface comprises displaying the plaintext explanation of the sport play that occurred at the live sporting event (paragraphs [0047]-[0049], [0058], [0061]-[0067] – user interface provides explanation of play).
Concerning claim 13, Srinivasan discloses wherein rendering the graphical user interface comprises rendering a graphic indicating a field position of one or more of a ball utilized in the live sporting event or a player engaging in the live sporting event (paragraphs [0047]-[0049], [0058], [0061]-[0067] – field position is described).
Concerning claim 14, Srinivasan discloses wherein rendering the graphical user interface comprises rendering a notification regarding the live sporting event, and wherein the notification indicates one or more of: a referee call during the live sporting event; a player substitution during the live sporting event; a player injury during the live sporting event; or a scoring event during the live sporting event (paragraphs [0047]-[0049], [0058], [0061]-[0067] – data is provided about the play).
Concerning claim 15, Srinivasan discloses further comprising ranking the plurality of users based on correctly or incorrectly predicting the upcoming sports play, and further based correctly or incorrectly predicting previous sports plays in the live sporting event and in other sporting events (paragraphs [0047]-[0049], [0058], [0061]-[0067] – sports plays are predicted).
Concerning claim 16, Srinivasan discloses further comprising: generating a prediction group comprising a portion of the plurality of users; receiving preferences for the prediction group; and providing a plurality of prediction options for each play in the live sporting event according to the preferences for the prediction group (paragraphs [0047]-[0049], [0058], [0061]-[0067] – sports plays are predicted).
Concerning claim 17, Srinivasan discloses further comprising: generating a prediction group comprising a portion of the plurality of users; pushing data updates to accounts associated with the prediction group in a synchronous manner to ensure all accounts within the prediction group receive the data updates simultaneously (paragraphs [0047]-[0049], [0058], [0061]-[0067] – data is sent to update accounts).
Concerning claim 18, Srinivasan discloses further comprising receiving an input indicating a viewing method for all accounts within the prediction group, wherein the viewing method comprises one of viewing the live sporting event in-person, viewing the live sporting event on broadcast television, viewing the live sporting event on a streaming platform, or listening to the live sporting event on a radio broadcast; and wherein pushing the data updates to the accounts associated with the prediction group comprises synchronizing the data updates with timing of the viewing method (paragraphs [0047]-[0049], [0058], [0061]-[0067] – event is streamed).
Concerning claim 19, Srinivasan discloses wherein synchronizing the data updates with the timing of the viewing method comprises delaying the data updates relative to other accounts outside the prediction group (paragraphs [0047]-[0049], [0058], [0061]-[0067] – data is updated).
Concerning claim 20, Srinivasan discloses further comprising verifying the viewing method of the prediction group based at least in part on a current geographical location of a mobile device associated with the accounts associated with the prediction group (paragraphs [0047]-[0049], [0058], [0061]-[0067] – prediction is based on mobile interface).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed in the PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALINA D BLAISE whose telephone number is (571)270-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 7:00 am - 5:00 pm (PT).
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at 571-272-7147. 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.
MALINA D. BLAISE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/MALINA D. BLAISE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights