Detailed Action
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, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
The claim(s) recite(s), inter alia,
receive a request of a user via a chat interface
identify, based on the request a simulated game
communicate with a data source to retrieve constraint parameters of the simulated game
select a first lineup based on simulation of competition scenarios in the simulated game
present the first lineup to the user
receive inputs from the user to modify the first lineup and generate a second lineup
communicate the second lineup to a host of the simulated game
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, representative claim 1 covers the performance of limitations in the mind. A human—using their mind, pen, and paper—is capable of receiving a request from a user to play a game, identifying a specific game from a game organizer, receiving constraints for the game, proposing an initial lineup to the player, modifying the lineup per player request, and sending the modified lineup to the game organizer for play.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Representative claim 1 recites the additional elements of “using a large language model” and an “application programming interface.” Specifically, these additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, are not integrated into a practical application because:
Application programming interface: Extracting and processing information. Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Using a large language model: See, e.g., July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, number 47. 1
With respect to the wagering games, these additional elements which were interpreted under step 2A prong 2 are re-evaluated in step 2B, and evidence is known that they were well-understood, routine, and conventional at the time of filing.
Application programming interface: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Using a large language model: The recitation “identify … using the large language model, a simulated game” amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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. If this application names joint inventors, 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, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hereford (US 2011/0230243 A1) in view of Huke et al (US 2024/0087072 A1) and Cronin (US 2022/0122601 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Allen discloses a system, comprising a lineup assistant (Abstract) configured to receive a request of a user (Fig. 2: User logon), identify, based on the request, a simulated game (Fig. 2: Access players), communicate, with a data source to retrieve constraint parameters of the simulated game (Fig. 2: Available players), select a first lineup based on simulation of competition scenarios in the simulated game and present the first lineup to the user (Fig. 2: Suggest player replacements), receive inputs from the user to modify the first lineup and generate a second lineup (Fig. 2: User accepts suggestion), and communicate the second lineup to a host of the simulated game (¶ [0018]: fantasy sports league server). Huke suggests—where Hereford does not disclose—using a large language model (¶ [0094]: personnel adjustment module may use LLM, AI, and/or ML to predict how the personnel on the field, and the attributes of those personnel, drive the probabilities of a play). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Hereford and Huke in order to improve the performance of the evaluation model. Cronin suggests—where Hereford does not disclose—a chat interface (¶ [0070]) and an application programming interface (¶ [0036]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosures of Hereford, Huke and Cronin in order to simplify playing the game.
Claims 8 and 15 subsume the limitations of claim 1 above and are accordingly rejected for the same reasons given supra. Further regarding claim 15, Hereford discloses a non-transitory computer storage medium storing instructions which, when executed in a computing system, cause the computing system to perform a method (Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and not relied upon is made of record on the attached PTO-892 form.
Allen et al (US 20140364182 A1) discloses a fantasy sports trade evaluation system.
Baray et al (US 8568236 B2) discloses a fantasy sports agent.
Moore et al (US 20130245797 A1) discloses a fantasy game system for player selection.
Ware et al (US 20080125228 A1) discloses evaluation of fantasy players.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE ROWLAND whose telephone number is (469) 295-9129. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 10-8. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
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.
Applicant may choose, at his or her discretion, to correspond with Examiner via Internet e-mail. A paper copy of any and all email correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application file. Email communication must be authorized in advance. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via e-mail to any correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122.
Authorization may be perfected by submitting, on a separate paper, the following (or similar) disclaimer:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See MPEP 502.03 for more information.
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.
/STEVE ROWLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
1 See July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-AI-SMEUpdateExamples47-49.pdf, p. 6.
Prosecution Insights