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 .
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges receipt of amendments filed 1/17/25. Claims 1-20 remain pending, Claims 11 and 15-20 are currently amended, and Claims 21-117 are canceled.
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 abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) “A system for determining a user score, the system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations including; generate an entry for a user, the entry comprising: one or more entities, each entity associated with one or more attributes that are each correlated with a corresponding attribute score; and one or more modifiers configured to modify a respective attribute score for at least one of the one or more attributes; retrieve real-time data associated with the one or more attributes for the one or more entities, the real-time data comprising: statistical data relating to at least some of the one or more attributes; and one or more factors relating to at least some of the one or more modifiers; and determine the user score in real-time based on: computing the attribute score for each of the one or more attributes using the statistical data and a weighted distribution thereby forming a computed attribute score; applying the one or more modifiers to modify the computed attribute score for the at least one of the one or more attributes to generate one or more modified attribute scores, wherein a modification by the at least some of the one or more modifiers is based on the one or more factors; and aggregating the one or more modified attribute scores and any unmodified attribute scores to generate the user score.” (Claim 1). Each of the above underlined portions are related to an abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity, particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions for determining a user score). The interaction encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping). In this case, instructions or rules to generate an entry for a user, the entry comprising: one or more entities, each entity associated with one or more attributes that are each correlated with a corresponding attribute score; and one or more modifiers configured to modify a respective attribute score for at least one of the one or more attributes; retrieve real-time data associated with the one or more attributes for the one or more entities, the real-time data comprising: statistical data relating to at least some of the one or more attributes; and one or more factors relating to at least some of the one or more modifiers; and determine the user score in real-time based on: computing the attribute score for each of the one or more attributes using the statistical data and a weighted distribution thereby forming a computed attribute score; applying the one or more modifiers to modify the computed attribute score for the at least one of the one or more attributes to generate one or more modified attribute scores, wherein a modification by the at least some of the one or more modifiers is based on the one or more factors; and aggregating the one or more modified attribute scores and any unmodified attribute scores to generate the user score pertain to concepts performed via managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) pertaining to organizing human activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (particularly the technological environment of a gaming device and/or gaming system) (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer components (system, processor, memories) are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of a “system”, “processor”, and/or “memories”) are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility (the use of a computing device and/or generic components is merely illustrating the environment in which the abstract idea is practiced). These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. Taking the physical elements individually and in combination, the computer-based components perform purely generic computer-based functions that are silent in regards to clearly indicating how a computer aids the system or the extent to which a computer performs/implements the system. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer, ’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
It is settled law that adding physical elements to an abstract idea will not amount to an “inventive concept" if the physical elements are well-known, routine and conventional elements and they perform their well-known, routine and conventional functions. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, L.L.C. (Fed Cir 2016):
Turning to the second step in our analysis, we find that the claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner into a patent-eligible application of that idea. It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294). We agree with the district court that the claims’ recitation of a “telephone unit,” a “server”, an “image analysis unit,” and a “control unit” fail to add an inventive concept sufficient to bring the abstract idea into the realm of patentability. (Emphasis added by Examiner.)
On the question of preemption, the Federal Circuit has stated in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of DNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
Nor do the dependent claims 2-20 add “significantly more” since they merely add to the claimed concepts relating to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) under the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The dependent claims failing to place the claimed invention into a practical applicant or additional generic components of the dependent claims failing to amount to “significantly more” for the same reasons noted above.
Consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claim are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Perkin (US 2023/0021504).
Claim 1: Perkin a system (Fig. 1) for determining a user score (¶ 48), the system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (¶ 49-62, 147-163), cause the system to perform operations including: generate an entry for a user (¶ 27-28, 43, 45, 48, 54, 64, 72, 77), the entry comprising: one or more entities, each entity associated with one or more attributes that are each correlated with a corresponding attribute score (baseline fantasy score) (¶ 48, 54, 56, 65, 73); and one or more modifiers (PAV – player adjusted value) configured to modify a respective attribute score for at least one of the one or more attributes (¶ 58, 70-71, 73); retrieve real-time data (¶ 53) associated with the one or more attributes for the one or more entities, the real-time data comprising: statistical data relating to at least some of the one or more attributes (¶ 48, 53, 77); and one or more factors (¶ 70-71, 75, 77, 79, 101, 122) relating to at least some of the one or more modifiers (¶ 58-71); and determine the user score in real-time based on: computing the attribute score for each of the one or more attributes using the statistical data (¶ 65, 77) and a weighted distribution thereby forming a computed attribute score (¶ 34, 37, table 1); applying the one or more modifiers to modify the computed attribute score for the at least one of the one or more attributes to generate one or more modified attribute scores (¶ 59, 70-71, 73, 77), wherein a modification by the at least some of the one or more modifiers is based on the one or more factors (¶ 70-71, 75, 77, 79, 101, 122); and aggregating the one or more modified attribute scores and any unmodified attribute scores to generate the user score (¶ 60, 77).
Claim 2: Perkin teaches wherein the entry is generated based on a user selection of the one or more entities, one or more modifiers, or both (¶ 27-28, 43, 45, 48, 54, 64, 72, 77).
Claim 11: Perkin teaches wherein the one or more attributes comprises a statistical record relating to an action by an entity of the one or more entities (Abstract, ¶ 38, 64-65).
Claim 12: Perkin teaches wherein the entity corresponds to a sports player (¶ 64-65).
Claim 13: Perkin teaches wherein the entity corresponds to a professional football player as part of a national football league (¶ 53, 77, 79, 101, 116).
Claim 14: Perkin teaches wherein the one or more attributes is selected from the group consisting of touchdowns scored, touchdown passes, touchdown rushes, passing yards, rushing yards, rushing attempts, tackles, sacks, field-goals made, field-goals missed, field-goals made further than a predetermined distance, fumbles, fumble recoveries, incomplete passes, completed passes, interceptions, receptions, turnovers, offensive score, defensive score, overall score, offensive snaps, punt return yards, kick return yards, receiving targets, single run yardage, single pass yardage, and combinations thereof (¶ 37 table 1).
Claim 15: Perkin teaches wherein a plurality of modifiers of the one or more modifiers is configured to modify a single attribute score, such that the modification by the plurality of modifiers is compounded (¶ 73, 75, In one embodiment, the PAV can take the form of any operation, such as multiplication, addition, subtraction, or division, an equation, such as a polynomial with coefficients based on certain factors, or any combination thereof. The PAV can also take the form of an algorithm that can compute the AFS by a multitude of steps. For example, a PAV may be a multiplier of 2 (2×), addition of 5 (+5), subtraction of 7 (−7), division by 2 (x/2), or a combination of a multiplier of 2 followed by an addition of a constant (2×+C), depending on how the game is set up. In one embodiment, constant C is any positive integer (e.g., 5).).
Claim 16: Perkin teaches wherein at least some of the one or more factors include the retrieved statistical data (¶ 70-71).
Claim 17: Perkin teaches wherein at least some of the one or more factors are external factors independent of the statistical data retrieved (¶ 70-71).
Claim 18: Perkin teaches wherein the external factors are selected from the group consisting of weather, a stadium attendance, entity inactivity, entity injury, home field advantage, away games, and combinations thereof (¶ 77, 79, 101, 122).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkin (US 2023/0021504) in view of Butz (US 10,105,607).
Claim 3: Perkin teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein at least part of the entry is generated automatically based on a prediction by the one or more processors for maximizing the user score. Perkin at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 165). Furthermore, an analogous art of Butz teaches wherein at least part of the entry is generated automatically based on a prediction by the one or more processors for maximizing the user score (Col. 8:17-38). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Perkin with the automatic means of Butz because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of generating an entry for the user. Such a modification assist users who fail to select a entry are not penalized and provided with optimal entries (Butz – see above).
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkin (US 2023/0021504) in view of Gavriloff (US 6,371,855).
Claim 4: Perkin teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein each of the one or more entities is associated with an entity value, and wherein the entry is limited to a maximum entity value, such that a sum of entity values of the one or more entities does not exceed the maximum entity value. Perkin at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 165). Furthermore, an analogous art of Gavriloff wherein each of the one or more entities (players) is associated with an entity value (Wams), and wherein the entry (selection of players to form the user’s team) is limited to a maximum entity value (user’s budget of game value units), such that a sum of entity values of the one or more entities does not exceed the maximum entity value (Col. 2:1-Col. 3:25, Col. 4:22-39, Col. 5:49-65, Col. 6:11-19, Col. 11:23-33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Perkin with the entity value means of Gavriloff because such a modification provides a game that combines the entertainment of fantasy sports with the excitement of participating in an economic venture (Gavriloff – Col. 1:51-57).
Claim 5: Perkin in view of Gavriloff teaches wherein each entity value for a given entity is variable and based on i) a concentration of the given entity being used in a current entry, a previous entry, or both, for the user or one or more other participants, ii) past statistical data temporally prior to the current entry, or iii) both (Gavriloff - Col. 5:60-Col. 6:11).
Claim 6: Perkin view of Gavriloff teaches wherein the one or more processors adjusts the entity value based on a threshold of concentration being detected (Gavriloff - Col. 5:60-Col. 6:11).
Claim 7: Perkin in view of Gavriloff teaches, wherein an adjustment of the entity value is performed automatically (Gavriloff - Col. 5:60-Col. 6:11).
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkin (US 2023/0021504) in view of Uy (US 2017/0252656), and in further view of Gavriloff (US 6,371,855).
Claim 8: Perkin teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting each of the one or more modifiers is associated with a modifier value. Perkin at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above). Furthermore, an analogous art of Uy teaches that similarly structured modifiers can be associated with a modifier value (¶ 12, 61-62, 68, 70-71, 76, 113, emphasis on ¶ 62, 68). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, particularly the modifiers thereof, of Perkin such that the one or more modifiers are associated with a modifier value as taught by Uy because such a modification provides participants with a degree of control so that playing on the fantasy platforms provides more enjoyment (Uy- ¶ 9). Such a modification increases the overall attractiveness and excitement of the fantasy contest (Uy - ¶ 27).
Perkin in view of Uy teaches the above, but fails to teach wherein the entry is limited to a maximum modifier value, such that a sum of modifier values of the one or more modifiers does not exceed the maximum modifier value. Perkin at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above). Furthermore, an analogous art of Gavriloff teaches management of an entry (team) that includes commodities (players), wherein those commodities are each associated with a corresponding value, wherein the entry (team) is limited to a maximum commodity value (user’s budget of game value units), such that a sum of commodity values of the one or more commodities does not exceed the maximum commodity value (Col. 2:1-Col. 3:25, Col. 4:22-39, Col. 5:49-65, Col. 6:11-19, Col. 11:23-33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, particularly as it pertains to the modifiers (commodities), of Perkins in view of Uy with the user management of commodities of an entry of Gavriloff because such a modification provides a game that combines the entertainment of fantasy sports with the excitement of participating in an economic venture (Gavriloff – Col. 1:51-57).
In regards to the above, one skill is the art is not modifying the commodities (the modifiers itself) of Perkin in view of Uy but applying the management of commodities as taught by Gavriloff.
Claim 9: Perkin in view of Uy in view of Gavriloff teaches wherein each modifier value for a given modifier is variable and based on i) a concentration of the given modifier being used in a current entry, a previous entry, or both, for the user or one or more other participants, ii) historical and/or predictive data relating to the one or more factors, or iii) both (teachings of Gavriloff - Col. 5:60-Col. 6:11 applied to the commodities (modifier values) of Perkin in view of Uy).
Claim 10: Perkin in view of Uy in view of Gavriloff, wherein the one or more processors adjusts the modifier value based on a threshold of concentration being detected (teachings of Gavriloff - Col. 5:60-Col. 6:11 applied to the commodities (modifier values) of Perkin in view of Uy).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkin (US 2023/0021504) in view of Levy (US 2010/0184495).
Claim 19: Perkin teaches the above, in addition to wherein the operations further include ranking the user score for a plurality of users according to value, wherein the ranking is updated based on the real-time data retrieved for each user (¶ 31, 48, 77), but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein such updating is done continuously. Perkin at least teaches that various modifications can occur without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above) and that the contest ends when all of the real life games of the real life players within the fantasy contest are over (Fig. 5, steps 510-511, it is clear that the scores of the players to determine the fantasy teams scores are provided in real-time which means the scores change continuously because some players finish their games before other players ). Furthermore, an analogous art of Levy teaches that leaderboards (equivalent to rankings) in fantasy games can be updated continuously (¶ 48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ranking means of Perkin such that it is continuously updated as taught by Levy because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of providing rankings to a user in which at least Perkin is intended (see above). Such a modification allows user(s) to continuously check the status of their team within the fantasy game making the game more user-friendly.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkin (US 2023/0021504).
Claim 20: Perkin teaches the above, in addition to wherein the weighted distribution is based on pre-determined weights applied to each attribute score associated with the entry (¶ 37, 42, for example, 1 point per 10 rushing yards and 6 points per touchdown are considered predetermined weights, wherein attribute score can be derived from such weights), but lacks explicitly suggesting an algorithm applying said weights. Perkin teaches that “Some portions of the preceding detailed descriptions have been presented in terms of algorithms and symbolic representations of operations on data bits within a computer memory. These algorithmic descriptions and representations are the ways used by those skilled in the data processing arts to most effectively convey the substance of their work to others skilled in the art. An algorithm is here, and generally, conceived to be a self-consistent sequence of operations leading to a desired result. The operations are those requiring physical manipulations of physical quantities” (¶ 160). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operation of applied predetermined weights to each attribute score of Perkin such that the operation is implemented via an algorithm as taught by Perkin because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of achieving a desired result of applying weights to attribute scores in which Perkin is intended. Such a modification would have been considered mere routine to one of ordinary skill in art (Perkin - ¶ 160).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAMAR HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-6177. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 5:30pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571) 270-1344. 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.
/TRAMAR HARPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights