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 .
Procedural Summary
This is responsive to the claims filed 01/17/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Applicant’s IDS submission is acknowledged and provided herewith.
The Drawings filed on 01/17/2025 are noted.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites in the preamble “reporting and verifying score…” It should instead read “reporting and verifying scores…”
Claim 15 is objected to because the limitation “… extracting the second score using image recognition technology to extract the second score from the image” sounds redundant. It should instead read “extracting the second score from the image using image recognition technology.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claims 1 and 8: “crowdsourced input channel configured to receive the scores of the sporting events from attendees;”
Claims 1, 7, and 10: “confidence interval calculator configured to calculate confidence intervals;”
Claim 2: “notification tool configured to transmit a notification to the accounts;”
Claims 4-6: “image recognition unit configured to receive images of the sporting events”; and
Claim 9: “score verification tool configured to calculate a provisional score.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In each case the corresponding structure is a general-purpose computer, namely server 104 or computing device 200 in paragraphs [0034]-[0038] and [0049] of the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites “the score” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 recites “the confidence interval calculator” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Each of Claims 1-20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
The examiner follows the two step-analysis, as described in MPEP 2106 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html).
Step 1
Step 1 of the two step-analysis considers whether the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention such as a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The instant invention claims a system for reporting and verifying score from sporting events in claims 1-10, a method of score reporting for sporting events in claims 11-19, and one or more computer storage media in claim 20. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad statutory categories of invention. However, claims that fall within one of the four statutory categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon. The term “abstract idea” is not interpreted as a layperson might. Instead, the term “abstract idea” is interpreted as described in legal opinions by courts.
According to MPEP 2106.04(a):
the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
The limitations of each independent claim, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, describe collecting reported information, evaluating its reliability, and presenting the result. A person can do this mentally or with a pen and paper. These limitations recite a series of steps which can be practically performed in the human mind through mental processes (for example, observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion)(see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). Calculating a confidence interval is also a mathematical concept. See MPEP 2016.04(a)(2), subsection I. Verifying the association of a user with a team (claim 12), requesting a score at the end of a game (claims 2, 13, 18), and weighing reporters by association type and history (claims 7, 10, 17-19) are steps that are certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). These claims are also analogous to the abstract ideas held in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying results) and Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected set, and storing it).
The limitations of the independent and dependent claims include the following abstract ideas below in italicized claim language:
Independent Claim 1 and dependent claims 2 to 10, recites: “1. A system for reporting and verifying score from sporting events, the system comprising:
a verification server (additional element) configured to store and verify accounts associated with sport teams, wherein the accounts have secure access for reporting and verifying scores of sporting events associated with the sport teams, respectively (abstract ideas: mental process including evaluation, certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
a crowdsourced input channel (additional element) configured to receive the scores of the sporting events from attendees at the sporting events (abstract ideas: mental process including evaluation, certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
a confidence interval calculator (additional element) configured to calculate confidence intervals for the scores received from the accounts and the attendees, wherein the confidence intervals indicates an accuracy of the scores (abstract ideas: mental process including evaluation, certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
a user interface (additional element) configured to display the scores and the confidence intervals associated with each of the scores (abstract ideas: mental process including evaluation, certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
further comprising a notification tool (additional element) configured to transmit a notification to the accounts associated with a sporting event at a conclusion of the sporting event, wherein the notification requests a score be submitted to the system from the accounts, (abstract ideas: mental process including evaluation, certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
further comprising a database (additional element) configured to store schedules associated with the sporting events and account information for the accounts (abstract ideas: mental process including evaluation, certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
further comprising an image recognition unit (additional element) configured to receive images of the sporting events and detect the scores within the images associated with the sporting events (abstract ideas: mental process including evaluation, certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
wherein the image recognition unit is further configured to receive the images from the accounts and from the crowdsourced input channel (abstract ideas: mental process including evaluation, certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
wherein the image recognition unit is further configured to process multiple formats of scoreboards and stat sheets including digital displays, analog displays, and paper stat sheets to derive the scores (additional element),
wherein the confidence interval calculator factors in a confidence weight associated with each of the accounts that submit the scores when calculating the confidence intervals (abstract ideas: mental process including evaluation, certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
wherein the crowdsourced input channel is further configured to query the attendees at the sporting events when the score has not been submitted for a game (abstract ideas: mental process including evaluation, certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
further comprising a score verification tool (additional element) configured to calculate a provisional score based on the scores received from multiple sources including the accounts, the attendees, and images (abstract ideas: mental process including evaluation, certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people), and
wherein the confidence interval calculator calculates the confidence intervals based, at least on, historical accuracy, source reliability, and metrics associated with the accounts (abstract ideas: mental process including evaluation, certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people, mathematical concept).”
Independent Claim 11 and dependent claims 12 to 19, recites: “11. A method of score reporting for sporting events, the method comprising:
receiving, at a server (additional element), a score associated with a sporting event from an account associated with the sporting event (abstract ideas: mental process including evaluation, certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
calculating a confidence interval associated with the score based on the account and historical data of the account, wherein the confidence interval indicates an accuracy of the score (abstract ideas: mental process including evaluation, certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people), and
generating a user interface that displays the score and the confidence interval on a web interface (abstract ideas: mental process including evaluation, certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
further comprising:
creating the account for a user associated with a team playing in the sporting event, wherein the account includes an association type of the user for the account (abstract ideas: mental process including evaluation, certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people), and
verifying the association type of the user with an administrator associated with the team (abstract ideas: mental process including evaluation, certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
further comprising:
transmitting a notification to the account at a conclusion of the sporting event prior to receiving the score, wherein the notification includes a score request for the sporting event from the account (abstract ideas: mental process including evaluation, certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
further comprising:
transmitting a request for the score via a crowdsourced channel hosted by the server (abstract ideas: mental process including evaluation, certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
receiving, at the server (additional element), a second score from the crowdsourced channel (abstract ideas: mental process including evaluation, certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
calculating the confidence interval for the score based, at least partially, on the second score (abstract ideas: mental process including evaluation, certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
further comprising:
receiving, at the server (additional element), an image via the crowdsourced channel (abstract ideas: mental process including evaluation, certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
extracting the second score using image recognition technology to extract the second score from the image (abstract ideas: mental process including evaluation, certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
wherein the image recognition technology is capable of extracting the second score from the image that displays a scoreboard or a stat sheet (abstract ideas: mental process including evaluation, certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
wherein the account includes a confidence weight based at least on an association type of the account with a team playing in the sporting event (abstract ideas: mental process including evaluation, certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
further comprising:
adjusting the confidence weight of the account based on historical accuracy of previous score submissions provided by the account (abstract ideas: mental process including evaluation, certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
wherein the confidence interval calculator (additional element) factors in the confidence weight of the account when calculating the confidence interval of the score submitted by the account (abstract ideas: mental process including evaluation, certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people).”
Independent Claim 20 recites: “20. One or more computer storage media storing computer-useable instructions that, when executed by one or more computing devices (additional element), cause the one or more computing devices to perform operations comprising:
receive, at a server (additional element), a score associated with a sporting event from an account associated with the sporting event (abstract ideas: mental process including evaluation, certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people);
calculate a confidence interval associated with the score by a confidence interval calculator on the server (additional element), wherein the confidence interval indicates an accuracy of the score based on the account (abstract ideas: mental process including evaluation, certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people); and
generate a user interface that displays the score and the confidence interval on a web interface (additional element).
The steps/limitations identified above are akin to a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, and thus falls within the groupings of abstract ideas. The recitation of the method being computer-implemented and performed by a server does not remove the claim from the mental-process grouping. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the additional elements in the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. To do so, the examiner looks to the following exemplary considerations, looking at the elements individually and in combination:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a));
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda Memo);
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(b);
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Conversely, considerations not indicative of integration include adding words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)); adding insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Here, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements in the claims are a verification server, a crowdsourced input channel, a confidence interval calculator, a user interface, a web interface, a notification tool, a database, an image recognition unit, a score verification tool, and computer storage media executed by computing devices. These elements are recited at a high level of generality and perform their ordinary functions of receiving, storing, calculating, transmitting and displaying data. They amount to instructions to apply the exception using generic computers. MPEP 2106.05(f). Receiving scores and images and transmitting notifications are insignificant extra-solution data gathering and output. MPEP 2106.05(g). Limiting the idea to sporting events is a field-of-use limitation. MPEP 2106.05(h). The image recognition elements are claimed by their result (detect or extract score) without any particular technique, so they do not reflect an improvement to image-processing technology. MPEP 2106.05(a). The claims as a whole do not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology.
Furthermore, the additional elements do not serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Accordingly, the claims as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and these claims are directed to the judicial exception. Thus, Claims 1 to 20 lack the eligibility requirements of Step 2 Prong II.
Step 2B
Finally, under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements are indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) by the following considerations:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a));
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda Memo);
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(b);
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The examiner also evaluates whether the additional elements add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (MPEP 2106.05(d)), which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present.
Conversely, considerations not indicative of integration include adding words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)); adding insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)); generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)); or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo)).
The present claims do 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 elements identified under Prong 2, are generically claimed. Receiving and transmitting data over a network, storing and retrieving information in memory, and presenting data on a display are among the functions recognized as conventional in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and the courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.
Here, the specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
Furthermore, taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in the claims do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to conduct an activity with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. The above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Additionally, under the Berkheimer standard, the Examiner takes the position that the elements were well-understood, routine, and conventional, supported by the following:
Podolosky, US 10,220,290 B1 fig. 4, Col. 7:21-63 discloses verification server 40, memory 403, and web posting of real time score for the real-time sporting events. The server also includes at least one computer program configured to receive data uploads and store the data uploads in the SQL database; and
Scott, US 2020/0242365 A1 to Scott, para. [0007] discloses the computing system could apply optical-character-recognition (OCR) to a video frame of the media stream, in an effort to recognize various characters depicted by the frame, and the computing system could work to determine the sport-related information based on the recognized characters.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, Claims 1 to 20 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process, certain methods of organizing human activity) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
AIA Notice
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 11, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 10,220,290 B1 to Podolosky et al. (hereinafter Podolosky), as recited on the IDS.
Regarding Claim 11, Podolosky discloses a method of score reporting for sporting events (fig. 14, method steps 700), the method comprising:
receiving, at a server (fig. 4, server 40), a score associated with a sporting event from an account associated with the sporting event (fig. 8, Col. 7:63 – Col. 8:2, Col. 8:32-36 discloses verification server 40 receives digital communications each containing content (the score) for a specific sporting event, from identified sources; each source is a user identified by user ID with a user rank and scoring history, i.e., an account);
calculating a confidence interval associated with the score based on the account and historical data of the account, wherein the confidence interval indicates an accuracy of the score (Col. 8:44-51, 63-67, Col. 9:1-8, 13-18, Col. 10:11-45 discloses generating a confidence level for each communication based on a history of previous communications, accuracy of previous communications and contribution type; confidence uses user scoring history and user level; the confidence level is generated at the verification server); and
generating a user interface that displays the score and the confidence interval on a web interface (fig. 7 displays per communication the source, user rank, confidence grade (high or low) and the score, Col. 7:63 – Col. 8:5, Col. 6:3-4, Col. 4:52-55 discloses scores are posted at a web site and via web services).
Regarding Claim 14, Podolosky discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising:
transmitting a request for the score via a crowdsourced channel hosted by the server (fig. 4, Col. 8:63 – Col. 9:8, Col. 4:32-37 discloses users at a game are presented all scoring for the game and asked to vote on accuracy and anyone in the crowd may submit scores);
receiving, at the server, a second score from the crowdsourced channel (fig. 7 displays multiple sources reporting scores for the same game); and
calculating the confidence interval for the score based, at least partially, on the second score (Col. 8:57-62, Col. 4:44-52, Col. 10:37 “verifiedByMultipleTweets” discloses calculating confidence based on the other scores, since the statistical analysis reviews all scores of the game and the scoring algorithm applies wisdom of the crowd).
Regarding Claim 20, Podolosky discloses one or more computer storage media storing computer-useable instructions that, when executed by one or more computing devices (fig. 4), cause the one or more computing devices to perform operations comprising:
receive, at a server, a score associated with a sporting event from an account associated with the sporting event (fig. 4, Col. 7:20-30 discloses server 40 includes memory 404, non-removable storage 407, and application programs 410 executed by CPU 401; fig. 8, Col. 7:63 – Col. 8:2, Col. 8:32-36 discloses verification server 40 receives digital communications each containing content (the score) for a specific sporting event, from identified sources; each source is a user identified by user ID with a user rank and scoring history, i.e., an account);
calculate a confidence interval associated with the score by a confidence interval calculator on the server, wherein the confidence interval indicates an accuracy of the score based on the account (Col. 8:44-51, 63-67, Col. 9:1-8, 13-18, Col. 10:11-45 discloses generating a confidence level for each communication based on a history of previous communications, accuracy of previous communications and contribution type; confidence uses user scoring history and user level; the confidence level is generated at the verification server); and
generate a user interface that displays the score and the confidence interval on a web interface (fig. 7 displays per communication the source, user rank, confidence grade (high or low) and the score, Col. 7:63 – Col. 8:5, Col. 6:3-4, Col. 4:52-55 discloses scores are posted at a web site and via web services).
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-3, 7-10, 13, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,220,290 B1 to Podolosky et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0048187 A1 to Sullivan.
Regarding Claim 1, Podolosky discloses a system for reporting and verifying score from sporting events (figs. 1-2), the system comprising:
a verification server configured to store and verify accounts …, wherein the accounts have secure access for reporting and verifying scores of sporting events associated with the sport teams, respectively (Col. 4:32-52, Col. 7:21-31, 44-52, Col. 8:32-45 discloses verification server 40 with SQL databases 45a-45d stores user data and determines each originator’s reputation … users include coaches and communications are over HTTPS; Col. 6: 5-15: the real-time sporting events is a sports team);
a crowdsourced input channel configured to receive the scores of the sporting events from attendees at the sporting events (fig. 1 “Fans in the stand”, fig. 2, “user location vs venue”, Col. 4:32-37, Col. 9:45-58 discloses present invention uses crowd sourcing to allow anyone to provide scores and users work together to provide a real-time score for a sporting event and uses powerful tools and algorithms built around verifying score information from users … location determination determined by GPS relative to the venue);
a confidence interval calculator configured to calculate confidence intervals for the scores received from the accounts and the attendees, wherein the confidence intervals indicates an accuracy of the scores (Col. 3:44-48, Col. 8:44-62 discloses generating a confidence level for each of the plurality of digital communications based on at least one of a history of previous digital communications, an accuracy of previous digital communications, and a contribution type of previous digital communications … The method also performs a statistical analysis of the score to determine a confidence level for the score); and
a user interface configured to display the scores and the confidence intervals associated with each of the scores (fig. 7, Col. 7:63-Col.8:5 discloses displaying of score with confidence grade for each submission).
However, Podolosky does not explicitly disclose “…accounts associated with sport teams.” In a related invention, Sullivan discloses a system and method for transferring and distributing live amateur sports data (¶¶ [0016]). Sullivan discloses game specific information such as accounts associated with sport teams (¶¶ [0016]-[0020] discloses software application may be configured for keeping score of a sporting event. To that end, the software application may collect and receive data related to a sporting event, such as a live amateur sporting event, and distribute the data for public viewing. Data and statistics related to the sporting event ("game data") may be input into the mobile device 12 by a user at the sporting event.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Podolosky’s scoring system, to associate particular user accounts with sports teams as taught by Sullivan, because identifying the team with which a user is associated would permit the system to identify the source of submitted game information more accurately and to organize score reports for the corresponding sporting event.
Regarding Claim 2, Podolosky discloses the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a notification tool configured to transmit a notification to the accounts associated with a sporting event at a conclusion of the sporting event, wherein the notification requests a score be submitted to the system from the accounts.
In a related invention, Sullivan discloses further comprising a notification tool configured to transmit a notification to the accounts associated with a sporting event at a conclusion of the sporting event, wherein the notification requests a score be submitted to the system from the accounts (¶¶ [0020]-[0021], [0028] discloses the database prompting the user via mobile device to enter specific information based on predetermined conditions and game data is uploaded at scheduled updates from the mobile device 12 to the database. For example, the software application may be configured to upload game data updates at predetermined time intervals).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Podolosky’s scoring system to include a notification tool associated with a sporting event as disclosed by Sullivan because the final score becoming available when the event ends represents the completed game result sought by the score-reporting system.
Regarding Claim 3, Podolosky discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a database Col. 7:21-31 discloses SQL databases 45a-45d to store user data), but it does not explicitly disclose it is “configured to store schedules associated with the sporting events and account information for the accounts.”
In a related invention, Sullivan discloses a database “configured to store schedules associated with the sporting events and account information for the accounts” (fig. 1, database 14, ¶¶ [0020], [0028] discloses database 14 may store information related to specific amateur sporting events such as rules, regulations, and other information related to specific sports leagues).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Podolosky to include storing sporting event schedule information as taught by Sullivan because maintaining game information would allow the system to determine which sporting events are expected to occur and when score information should be collected.
Regarding Claim 7, Podolosky in view of Sullivan discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the confidence interval calculator factors in a confidence weight associated with each of the accounts that submit the scores when calculating the confidence intervals (Podolosky, Col. 8:12-15, Col. 10:11-45 discloses weighs each submitter by user rank and trust level when computing confidence).
Regarding Claim 8, Podolosky in view of Sullivan discloses the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the crowdsourced input channel is further configured to query the attendees at the sporting events when the score has not been submitted for a game.
In a related invention, Sullivan discloses wherein the crowdsourced input channel is further configured to query the attendees at the sporting events when the score has not been submitted for a game (fig. 1, website 16, ¶¶ [0028]-[0033] discloses the website 16 may allow third party users to send text requests to the mobile device user related to the status of the game or players in the game. The software application may display the text requests and allow the mobile device user to respond accordingly).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Podolosky to include querying the attendees at the sporting events when the score has not been submitted for a game, as taught by Sullivan, because Podolosky relies upon attendees as sources of crowdsourced game information so providing this information ensures real-time game information collected is accurate and verifiable when reporting the scores for the sporting events (Podolosky, Col. 1:28-45).
Regarding Claim 9, Podolosky in view of Sullivan discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a score verification tool configured to calculate a provisional score based on the scores received from multiple sources including the accounts, the attendees, and images (Podolosky, Col. 8:52-54, Col. 6:17-21, Col. 4:44-52 discloses determining real-time score from a collaboration of verified content from multiple sources including social media images, before final decision by power users and administrators).
Regarding Claim 10, Podolosky in view of Sullivan discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the confidence interval calculator calculates the confidence intervals based, at least on, historical accuracy (Podolosky, Col. 8:48-51 discloses the method also includes generating a confidence level for each of the plurality of digital communications based on at least one of a history of previous digital communications and an accuracy of previous digital communications), source reliability (Podolosky, Col. 8:41-43 discloses determining an origination location of each of the plurality of communications and a distance of the origination location from the geographical location of the specific real-time sporting event), and metrics associated with the accounts (Podolosky, Col. 9:6-8 discloses account metrics such as user rank and location).
Regarding Claim 13, Podolosky discloses the method of claim 12, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising:
transmitting a notification to the account at a conclusion of the sporting event prior to receiving the score, wherein the notification includes a score request for the sporting event from the account.
In a related invention, Sullivan discloses further comprising: transmitting a notification to the account at a conclusion of the sporting event prior to receiving the score, wherein the notification includes a score request for the sporting event from the account (¶¶ [0020]-[0021], [0028] discloses the database prompting the user via mobile device to enter specific information based on predetermined conditions and game data is uploaded at scheduled updates from the mobile device 12 to the database. For example, the software application may be configured to upload game data updates at predetermined time intervals).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Podolosky’s scoring system to include a notification to the account at a conclusion of the sporting event such as a score request, as disclosed by Sullivan because the final score becoming available when the event ends represents the completed game result sought by the score-reporting system.
Regarding Claim 17, Podolosky in view of Sullivan discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the account includes a confidence weight based at least on an association type of the account with a team playing in the sporting event (Podolosky, Col. 4:37-43 discloses power users and good users outrank lesser-experienced users, Col. 10:11-45 discloses influencer scores assign trust levels, Col. 4:34-37, Col. 8:48-51, and Col. 9:6-8 discloses identifying users by type, namely fans, coaches, students and bases confidence on contribution type and user level).
Regarding Claim 18, Podolosky in view of Sullivan discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising:
adjusting the confidence weight of the account based on historical accuracy of previous score submissions provided by the account (Podolosky, fig. 9 displays rank changes, Col. 8:12-15, Col. 10:11-45 discloses adjusting user’s rank based on the history and accuracy of prior score submissions).
Regarding Claim 19, Podolosky in view of Sullivan discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the confidence interval calculator factors in the confidence weight of the account when calculating the confidence interval of the score submitted by the account (Podolosky, Col. 8:12-15, Col. 10:11-45 discloses confidence levels is calculated using the user’s rank and trust factors).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,220,290 B1 to Podolosky et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0048187 A1 to Sullivan and further in view of U.S. Patent 11,805,283 to Scott et al. (hereinafter Scott).
Regarding Claim 4, Podolosky in view of Sullivan discloses the system of claim 1 further comprising … configured to receive images of the sporting events (Podolosky, Col. 6:17-21, Col. 9:53-56 discloses receiving images of the sporting event such as social media images and content “image or other” sent with geo-location and time stamp).
The combination, however, does not explicitly disclose an image recognition unit… and detect the scores within the images associated with the sporting events.
In a related invention, Scott discloses an image recognition unit… and detect the scores within the images associated with the sporting events (fig. 2, blocks 202-206, fig. 8, blocks 802-810, figs. 5A-5C, 7B, Col. 5:34-44, Col. 11:43-66 discloses a computing system that identifies the scoreboard region of an image, applies OCR to it, and generates sports data indicating team names and scores).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Podolosky and Sullivan to include image recognition of sports images and detect the scores within the images as taught by Scott, because Podolosky already receives images associated with sporting events, so extracting the score from an image would further provide an additional source of score information and accuracy that could be compared with the crowdsourced submission to further improve the score reporting and verification process.
Regarding Claim 5, Podolosky in view of Sullivan and Scott discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the image recognition unit is further configured to receive the images from the accounts and from the crowdsourced input channel (Podolosky, Col. 4:32-37 discloses images arrive from both team-associated accounts and the crowd such as coaches and fans).
Regarding Claim 6, Podolosky in view of Sullivan discloses the system of claim 4, but the combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the image recognition unit is further configured to process multiple formats of scoreboards and stat sheets including digital displays, analog displays, and paper stat sheets to derive the scores.
In a related invention, Scott discloses wherein the image recognition unit is further configured to process multiple formats of scoreboards and stat sheets including digital displays, analog displays, and paper stat sheets to derive the scores (fig. 2, blocks 202-206, fig. 8, blocks 802-810, figs. 5A-5C, 7B, Col. 5:34-44, Col. 11:43-66 discloses a computing system that identifies the scoreboard region of an image, applies OCR to it, and generates sports data indicating team names and scores).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Podolosky and Sullivan to include image recognition of sports images and detect the scores within the images as taught by Scott, because Podolosky already receives images associated with sporting events, so extracting the score from an image would further provide an additional source of score information and accuracy that could be compared with the crowdsourced submission to further improve the score reporting and verification process.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,220,290 B1 to Podolosky et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0048187 A1 to Sullivan and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0166555 A1 to Petno.
Regarding Claim 12, Podolosky in view of Sullivan discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising:
creating the account for a user associated with a team playing in the sporting event, wherein the account includes an association type of the user for the account (Podolosky, Col. 4:34-37, Col. 9:6-8 discloses different user types such as coach, parent, fan and different user levels).
However, Podolosky in view of Sullivan does not explicitly disclose verifying the association type of the user with an administrator associated with the team.
In a related invention, Petno discloses a sporting-event system in which a team representative manages authorized users of a particular team (Abstract). Petno discloses verifying the association type of the user with an administrator associated with the team (fig. 6, ¶¶ [0050] discloses that a team representative may manage authorized users of a team, add a user by name and email, select an “AUTHORIZE USER” function and thereafter permit the authorized user to input, revise, and broadcast sporting-event information for that team).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined Podolosky-Sullivan system to verify or authorize a user’s claimed team association as taught by Petno because doing so prevents unauthorized users from reporting scores on behalf of a team and makes the association-based confidence weighting verifiable.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,220,290 B1 to Podolosky et al. in view of U.S. Patent 11,805,283 to Scott et al. (hereinafter Scott).
Regarding Claim 15, Podolosky discloses the method of claim 14, further comprising:
receiving, at the server, an image via the crowdsourced channel (Col. 6:17-21, Col. 19:53-56 discloses receiving images via the crowdsourced channel).
However, it does not explicitly disclose extracting the second score using image recognition technology to extract the second score from the image.
In a related invention, Scott discloses extracting the second score using image recognition technology to extract the second score from the image (fig. 2, blocks 202-206, fig. 8, blocks 802-810, figs. 5A-5C, 7B, Col. 5:34-44, Col. 11:43-66 discloses a computing system that identifies the scoreboard region of an image, applies OCR to it, and generates sports data indicating team names and scores).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Podolosky to include image recognition of sports images and detect the scores within the images as taught by Scott, because Podolosky already receives images associated with sporting events, so extracting the score from an image would further provide an additional source of score information and accuracy that could be compared with the crowdsourced submission to further improve the score reporting and verification process.
Regarding Claim 16, Podolosky discloses the method of claim 15, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the image recognition technology is capable of extracting the second score from the image that displays a scoreboard or a stat sheet.
In a related invention, Scott discloses wherein the image recognition technology is capable of extracting the second score from the image that displays a scoreboard or a stat sheet (figs. 3A-3C, displays scoreboard 304, fig. 5A, Col. 5:34-44, Col. 11:43-66 discloses a computing system that identifies the scoreboard region of an image, applies OCR to it, and generates sports data indicating team names and scores; the ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Podolosky to include image recognition of sports images and detect the scores within the images such as scoreboards as taught by Scott, because Podolosky already receives images associated with sporting events, so extracting the score from an image would further provide an additional source of score information and accuracy that could be compared with the crowdsourced submission to further improve the score reporting and verification process.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are examined above.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and is provided in the Notice of References cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUNA-KAY HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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.
/S.N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/JAMES B HULL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
