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 Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application 18/933,080 originally filed on October 31, 2024. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 9, and 12 are independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on March 20, 2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Priority
This application claims priority of US provisional application 63/595,036, filed November 1, 2023.
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, 3-5, 8-12, 14-16, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 18, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,632,465. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, as shown in the following comparison:
Instant claims
US Patent 12,632,465
1. A method of generating a dynamic rating for an entity and rearranging an icon associated with the entity on a graphical user interface (GUI) of a computer system, the method comprising:
receiving, via one or more data sources, a first set of data associated with one or more parameters for the entity;
[3. The method of claim 1, wherein the entity is a player for a sports team.]
calculating, via a deterministic algorithm, a plurality of ability scores based on the first set of data associated with the one or more parameters;
generating, via the deterministic algorithm, a first player rating based on each ability score of the plurality of ability scores;
dynamically adjusting, via the deterministic algorithm, the plurality of ability scores based on receiving a second set of data associated with the one or more parameters for the entity;
updating, via the deterministic algorithm, the first player rating based on the adjusted plurality of ability scores;
automatically rearranging the icon to a position above or below a current position of the icon on the GUI based on the updated first player rating.
1. A method of generating a dynamic rating for an entity and rearranging an icon associated with the entity on a graphical user interface (GUI) of a computer system, the method comprising:
receiving, via one or more data sources, a first set of data associated with one or more parameters for the entity, wherein the entity is a sports team;
calculating, via a deterministic algorithm, a plurality of ability scores based on the first set of data associated with the one or more parameters;
generating, via the deterministic algorithm, a first rating based on each ability score of the plurality of ability scores;
dynamically adjusting, via the deterministic algorithm, the plurality of ability scores based on receiving a second set of data associated with the one or more parameters for the entity;
updating, via the deterministic algorithm, the first rating based on the adjusted plurality of ability scores; and
automatically rearranging the icon to a position above or below a current position of the icon on the GUI based on the updated first rating.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more parameters includes a competition-based match importance weighting and/or a game week-based match importance weighting.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more parameters includes a competition-based match importance weighting and/or a game week-based match importance weighting.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the first set of data includes one or more of: a first match report, a first set of player data, a geographical location, event level data, and/or a first score report.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the first set of data includes one or more of: a first match report, a first set of player data, a geographical location, and/or a first score report.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the GUI is represented as a hierarchical rating system in which the icon for the entity represents a player for a sports team.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the GUI is represented as a hierarchical rating system in which the icon for the entity represents a sports team.
9. A method of generating an overall rating for an entity, the method comprising:
receiving, via one or more data sources, a first set of data associated with an entity;
calculating, via a deterministic algorithm, a first plurality of ability scores based on the first set of data associated with one or more parameters;
generating, via the deterministic algorithm, a first rating based on each ability score of the first plurality of ability scores;
calculating, via the deterministic algorithm, a second plurality of ability scores based on the first set of data associated with the one or more parameters;
generating, via the deterministic algorithm, a second rating based on each ability score of the second plurality of ability scores and the first rating;
dynamically adjusting, via the deterministic algorithm, the first plurality of ability scores and the second plurality of ability scores based on receiving a second set of data associated with the one or more parameters for the entity;
updating, via the deterministic algorithm, the first rating and the second rating based on the adjusted plurality of ability scores; and
automatically rearranging an icon to a position above or below a current position of the icon on a graphical user interface (GUI) based on the updated second rating.
[10. The method of claim 9, wherein the first rating is a rating for a player on a sports team, and wherein the second rating is a rating for the sports team.]
18. A method of generating a rating report for display on a graphical user interface (GUI) on a downstream entity, the method comprising:
receiving, via one or more data sources, a first set of data associated with one or more parameters for a first entity;
calculating, via a deterministic algorithm, a first plurality of ability scores based on the first set of data associated with the one or more parameters;
generating, via the deterministic algorithm, a first rating for the first entity based on the first plurality of ability scores;
calculating, via the deterministic algorithm, a second plurality of ability scores based on the third set of data associated with the one or more parameters; [this limitation moved up for comparison]
generating, via the deterministic algorithm, a second rating for the second entity based on the second plurality of ability scores; [this limitation moved up for comparison]
dynamically adjusting, via the deterministic algorithm, the first plurality of ability scores based on receiving a second set of data associated with the one or more parameters for the first entity;
updating, via the deterministic algorithm, the first rating based on the adjusted first plurality of ability scores;
[The arrangement of the displayed icons based on rating on the graphical user interface (GUI) would have been an obvious design choice]
receiving, via the one or more data sources, a third set of data associated with one or more parameters for a second entity;
dynamically adjusting, via the deterministic algorithm, the second plurality of ability scores based on receiving a fourth set of data associated with the one or more parameters for the second entity;
updating, via the deterministic algorithm, the second rating based on the adjusted second plurality of ability scores;
automatically calculating the rating report by inputting the first rating and the second rating into a trained machine-learning based model, wherein:
the trained machine-learning based model is trained to learn associations between the first rating and the second rating, the first rating associated with a rating for a first sports team and the second rating associated with a rating for a second sports team; and
the trained machine-learning model is configured, via the training, to generate, as output, the rating report for use in projecting an outcome between the first sports team and the second sports team, based on the learned associations, wherein the rating report is displayed on the GUI of the downstream entity.
11. The method of claim 9, wherein the second set of data includes one or more of: a second match report, a second set of player data, a second geographical location, and/or a second score report.
19. The method of claim 18, wherein the first set of data includes one or more of: a first match report, a first set of player data, a first geographical location, and/or a first score report, and wherein the second set of data includes one or more of: a second match report, a second set of player data, a second geographical location, and/or a second score report.
Claims 12, 14-16, and 19 are substantially similar to claims 1, 3-5, and 8, respectively. Therefore, claims 12, 14-16, and 19 are also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 4, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,632,465.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to “a method” (i.e. a process), claim 9 is directed to “a method” (i.e. a process), and claim 12 is directed to “a system” (i.e. a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “generating a dynamic rating for an entity” reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Claims that require a computer may also recite a mental process, as described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as “mental processes,” which require the following limitations (of representative claim 1):
“receiving, via one or more data sources, a first set of data associated with one or more parameters for the entity;
calculating, via a deterministic algorithm, a plurality of ability scores based on the first set of data associated with the one or more parameters;
generating, via the deterministic algorithm, a first player rating based on each ability score of the plurality of ability scores;
dynamically adjusting, via the deterministic algorithm, the plurality of ability scores based on receiving a second set of data associated with the one or more parameters for the entity;
updating, via the deterministic algorithm, the first player rating based on the adjusted plurality of ability scores;
automatically rearranging the icon to a position above or below a current position of the icon on the GUI based on the updated first player rating.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “a computer system,” “a memory,” and “a processor” are claimed, as these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering) and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “generating a dynamic rating for an entity” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a computer system,” “a memory,” and “a processor” are claimed these are all generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements, Applicant’s specification discloses them in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a), which satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “a computer system,” including “a memory” and “a processor,” is described in paragraph [0022] as follows: “any of the disclosed systems, methods, and/or graphical user interfaces may be executed by or implemented by a computing system consistent with or similar to that depicted and/or explained in this disclosure. Although not required, aspects of the present disclosure are described in the context of computer-executable instructions, such as routines executed by a data processing device, e.g., a server computer, wireless device, and/or personal computer. Those skilled in the relevant art will appreciate that aspects of the present disclosure can be practiced with other communications, data processing, or computer system configurations, including: Internet appliances, hand-held devices (including personal digital assistants (“PDAs”)), wearable computers, all manner of cellular or mobile phones (including Voice over IP (“VoIP”) phones), dumb terminals, media players, gaming devices, virtual reality devices, multi-processor systems, microprocessor-based or programmable consumer electronics, set-top boxes, network PCs, mini-computers, mainframe computers, and the like. Indeed, the terms “computer,” “server,” and the like, are generally used interchangeably herein, and refer to any of the above devices and systems, as well as any data processor.”
These elements are reasonably interpreted as a generic computer which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the claimed limitation of “a computer system,” including “a memory” and “a processor,” is reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-8, 10, 11, and 13-20 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-8, 10, 11, and 13-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to independent claims 1, 9, and 12.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-14, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thayer (US 2006/0030407) in view of Weingardt et al. (hereinafter “Weingardt,” US 2015/0348373).
Regarding claim 1, and substantially similar limitations in claims 9 and 12, Thayer discloses a method of generating a dynamic rating for an entity … the method comprising:
receiving, via one or more data sources, a first set of data associated with one or more parameters for the entity (Thayer [0026], “The client computer is configured to interface to current on-line sports competitions and be updated with player performance data in a predetermined, substantially real-time interval”);
calculating, via a deterministic algorithm, a plurality of ability scores based on the first set of data associated with the one or more parameters (Thayer [0080], “Various controls generate steering information, braking information, clutch position, gear shift position, as well as acceleration information. This information is placed in a frame in step 1079 with a header which identifies a particular player and is posted as a message to the host server 801. Player position updates are received from the host server in step 1080 and displayed on display 820 in step 1082. When the host server computer 801 has declared a winner, a race over command is sent and received in step 1083 on the user's display 820. New rankings of each player based on his relative performance in the race game are then received from the host server computer 801 and displayed and stored in the client computer 807,” performance is calculated using a plurality of data points for each player);
generating, via the deterministic algorithm, a first player rating based on each ability score of the plurality of ability scores (Thayer [0042], “the ranking is determined in accordance with an amount of at least one of performance score, ranking, purses and prizes won by the competitor.”);
dynamically adjusting, via the deterministic algorithm, the plurality of ability scores based on receiving a second set of data associated with the one or more parameters for the entity (Thayer [0023], “On-line sports competition on at least one of the different levels of the competition rankings is started, and a real-time update interval for reporting the players' performance during the current on-line sports competitions is determined.”);
updating, via the deterministic algorithm, the first player rating based on the adjusted plurality of ability scores (Thayer [0023], “Updates of the player's competition performance for the event are reported to the plurality of players competing with one another during the predetermined real-time interval, and the final results of the current on-line sports competitions are used to update the competition rankings for each of the players.”) …
Thayer does not explicitly teach rearranging an icon associated with the entity on a graphical user interface (GUI) of a computer system … automatically rearranging the icon to a position above or below a current position of the icon on the GUI based on the updated first player rating.
However, Weingardt discloses rearranging an icon associated with the entity on a graphical user interface (GUI) of a computer system … automatically rearranging the icon to a position above or below a current position of the icon on the GUI based on the updated first player rating (Weingardt [0013], “establishing by the bidirectional application programming interface a dynamic participant ranking grid, the dynamic participant ranking grid updating based on performance of each participant of the plurality of participants in-game, wherein a position of individual participants of the plurality of participants on the dynamic participant ranking grid moves during and after the online video gaming tournament”; also Weingardt [0062], “Once player performance data has been fed from the game server(s) 2 of the tournament(s), the system 100 processes gamer performance into numerical rating and ranking ‘scores’ which may then be plotted on the appropriate tournament grid(s) 8 i.e Grid for Game ‘A’ or Grid for Game ‘B’; from this point, once a tournament has expired or otherwise completed based on the allotted play-time, the system 100 may calculate player positions, rewards, and progressive jackpot(s)/tournament pool(s) issuance based on the player rating/ranking as demonstrated per the placement on the actual tournament gaming grid 8. The grid 8 has the ultimate responsibility of determining player skill ranking within the game, and determining what player(s) get rewarded, as well as visually showing to players, users, and bystanders the progress and performance of players within.”; also Weingardt [0071], “The computed statistical data (i.e. the compiled summation of performance score) encompassing all games for a specific contestant 1, 3 or team may also be displayed on a website, dynamic signature image, or other online media.”).
Weingardt is analogous to Thayer, as both are drawn to the art of competition rating systems. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Thayer, to include rearranging an icon associated with the entity on a graphical user interface (GUI) of a computer system … automatically rearranging the icon to a position above or below a current position of the icon on the GUI based on the updated first player rating, as taught by Weingardt, in order to increase the attractiveness and excitement of the game to players (Weingardt [0002]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, and substantially similar limitations in claim 13, Thayer does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more parameters includes one or more of: an expected team rating, an actual team rating, an expected goal value, an expected possession value, a weighted goal value, and/or a defensive or attacking value.
However, Weingardt discloses wherein the one or more parameters includes one or more of: an expected team rating, an actual team rating, an expected goal value, an expected possession value, a weighted goal value, and/or a defensive or attacking value (Weingardt [0052], “the API 4 factors into the ranking, the player's or team's performance in-game and skill ranking differential between the two players (or teams) in determining actual grid movement during and after a match and a player's or team's post-match ranking.”).
Weingardt is analogous to Thayer, as both are drawn to the art of competition rating systems. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Thayer, to include wherein the one or more parameters includes one or more of: an expected team rating, an actual team rating, an expected goal value, an expected possession value, a weighted goal value, and/or a defensive or attacking value, as taught by Weingardt, in order to increase the attractiveness and excitement of the game to players (Weingardt [0002]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, and substantially similar limitations in claims 10 and 14, Thayer in view of Weingardt discloses wherein the entity is a player for a sports team (Thayer [0015], “advancement to a next round of play or next level of competition depends on a team's or an individual's performance in a previous round or level of the competition.”; also Thayer Abstract, “The overall rank of each player is calculated after each competition to group players having similar skill levels and serves as entry criteria in future competitions.”).
Regarding claim 5, and substantially similar limitations in claims 11 and 16, Thayer in view of Weingardt discloses wherein the first set of data includes one or more of: a first match report, a first set of player data, a geographical location, event level data, and/or a first score report (Thayer [0026], “The client computer is configured to interface to current on-line sports competitions and be updated with player performance data in a predetermined, substantially real-time interval,” player performance data is a first set of player data).
Regarding claim 7, and substantially similar limitations in claim 18, Thayer in view of Weingardt discloses wherein the first player rating is stored in the one or more data sources (Thayer [0025], “Data on the rankings of players during game play, and data on overall rankings of each of the plurality of players over a series of competitions, are stored in the memory.”).
Regarding claim 8, and substantially similar limitations in claim 19, Thayer does not teach wherein the GUI is represented as a hierarchical rating system in which the icon for the entity represents a player for a sports team.
However, Weingardt discloses wherein the GUI is represented as a hierarchical rating system in which the icon for the entity represents a player for a sports team (see Weingardt Fig. 7 and [0054], “The grid 8 is used for rating and ranking players skill based on live and real-time or past performance within the given game and/or tournament; by means of skill rating algorithms and mathematics that are processed during and after each tournament match. The higher of a players skill, the higher they are visually seen, and programmatically ranked on the grid 8 (high being towards upper-left, L1T1—Level 1, Tier 1, 16 as may be seen in FIG. 7).”).
Weingardt is analogous to Thayer, as both are drawn to the art of competition rating systems. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Thayer, to include wherein the GUI is represented as a hierarchical rating system in which the icon for the entity represents a player for a sports team, as taught by Weingardt, in order to increase the attractiveness and excitement of the game to players (Weingardt [0002]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 20, Thayer in view of Weingardt discloses wherein the first player rating is iteratively updated upon receiving an additional data set from the one or more data sources (Thayer [0024], “update the rank of the players during play in a predetermined real-time interval.”).
Claims 4, 6, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thayer in view of Weingardt, and in further view of Olson et al. (hereinafter “Olson,” US 2015/0065214).
Regarding claim 4, and substantially similar limitations in claim 15, Thayer in view of Weingardt does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more parameters includes a competition-based match importance weighting and/or a game week-based match importance weighting.
However, Olson discloses wherein the one or more parameters includes a competition-based match importance weighting and/or a game week-based match importance weighting (Olson [0039], “The rating a player receives may be determined based on a predetermined number of past events (such as the previous 16 games), which are subjected to a weighting algorithm that awards points according to predetermined performance statistics,” putting higher weight on the previous 16 games; also Olson [0062], “if the most accurate simulations of Team A occurred when Player B performed highly, a weighting of those games may be made in the aggregation,” providing higher weight to games where Player B performed highly).
Olson is analogous to Thayer in view of Weingardt, as both are drawn to the art of competition rating systems. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Thayer in view of Weingardt, to include wherein the one or more parameters includes a competition-based match importance weighting and/or a game week-based match importance weighting, as taught by Olson, in order to apply a known technique for scoring performance to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6, and substantially similar limitations in claim 17, Thayer in view of Weingardt does not explicitly teach wherein the event level data includes one or more of: tracking data, completed passes, distance covered, chances created, attempted passes.
However, Olson discloses wherein the event level data includes one or more of: tracking data, completed passes, distance covered, chances created, attempted passes (Olson [0039], “player statistics may include pass percentage, fumble percentage, sack percentage, average gain, scoring average, save percentage, etc. Each of these statistics may be weighted and assigned a valued that is used to rate the player.”).
Olson is analogous to Thayer in view of Weingardt, as both are drawn to the art of competition rating systems. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Thayer in view of Weingardt, to include wherein the event level data includes one or more of: tracking data, completed passes, distance covered, chances created, attempted passes, as taught by Olson, in order to apply a known technique for scoring performance to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen Alvesteffer whose telephone number is (571)272-8680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-6:00.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/STEPHEN ALVESTEFFER/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights