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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 01, 2021 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Applicant should note that the large number of references in the attached IDS have been considered by the examiner in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. See MPEP 609.05(b). Applicant is requested to point out any particular references in the IDS which they believe may be of particular relevance to the instant claimed invention in response to this office action.
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 1-16 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, the claims broadly cover "any live action game, any sensors/data feed, and probabilities of at least one upcoming action…” The specification fails to provide sufficient details on how information from the sensors/data feed is used to generate the probabilities and not merely state that probabilities are calculated. As a result, claims 1-16 are rejected.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim(s) 1 and 10 held to claim an abstract idea, and is/are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The rationale for this finding is explained below:
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “.”
The limitations of:
obtaining information about a live action game from one or more sensors and/or a data feed;
determining probabilities of at least one upcoming action based on the information; and
displaying the probabilities related to the at least one upcoming action.
as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a mobile device,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a mobile device” language, “obtaining game information, calculating probabilities of future game actions, communicating the resulting probabilities.” If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mathematical concepts (determining probabilities involves mathematical calculations) / mental process (observation/evaluation/judgment)” grouping of abstract ideas. Such activities are abstract ideas under USPTO guidance and case law (e.g., Alice, Electric Power Group, etc.), particularly when implemented on generic computers for economic or organizational purposes.
The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. There is no indication of a technological improvement or a technical solution to a technical problem. The claim does not recite a specific or unconventional way of obtaining game information, calculating probabilities of future game actions, communicating the resulting probabilities. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform both the ranking and determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim recites conventional steps such as “obtaining game information, calculating probabilities of future game actions, communicating the resulting probabilities.” No element or combination provides a technical improvement or “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible because it is directed to an abstract idea mathematical concepts (determining probabilities involves mathematical calculations) / mental process ((observation/evaluation/judgment), is not integrated into a practical application, and lacks an inventive concept beyond generic computer implementation.
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)(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) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Arbel (US 10,026,267 B2).
As per claim 1, Arbel discloses a computer implemented method comprising, executing on one or more processors: obtaining information about a live action game from one or more sensors and/or a data feed (see abstract); determining probabilities of at least one upcoming action based on the information (col. 2, lines 30-42; upcoming occurrence); and displaying the probabilities related to the at least one upcoming action (see fig. 1).
As per claim 2, Arbel discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1, further comprising determining that the information is sufficient to determine the probabilities of the at least one upcoming action.
As per claim 3, Arbel discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the information comprises play data from the live action game (see abstract).
As per claim 4, Arbel discloses the computer implemented method of claim 3, wherein the play data comprises game situational data (see fig. 1).
As per claim 5, Arbel discloses the computer implemented method of claim 3, wherein the play data comprises situational game data (see fig. 1).
As per claim 6, Arbel discloses the computer implemented method of claim 3, wherein the play data comprises play or action result information.
As per claim 7, Arbel discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1, further comprising comparing the information to historical data (see fig. 3).
As per claim 8, Arbel discloses the computer implemented method of claim 7, wherein the historical data is at least one of historical team actions based on the information and historical league actions based on the information (see fig. 3).
As per claim 9, Arbel discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the probabilities are expressed as odds (see fig. 1; odds of winning or losing).
As per claim 10, Arbel discloses a wagering system, comprising: at least one sensor configured to capture information from a live action game (see abstract); a processor configured to determine probabilities on at least an upcoming action using the information and historical data (col. 2, lines 30-42) (see fig. 1); and display that shows the probabilities related to the at least upcoming action in the live action game (see fig. 1).
As per claim 11, Arbel discloses the wagering system of claim 10, further comprising a database that stores the historical data (col. 3, lines 15-18).
As per claim 12, Arbel discloses the wagering system of claim 10, wherein the captured information is play data (see fig. 1).
As per claim 13, Arbel discloses the wagering system of claim 12, wherein the play data comprises situational game data (see fig. 1).
As per claim 14, Arbel discloses the wagering system of claim 12, wherein the play data comprises play or action result data (see fig. 1).
As per claim 15, Arbel discloses the wagering system of claim 12, wherein the historical data is at least one of historical team actions based on the information and historical league actions based on the information (see fig. 3).
As per claim 16, Arbel discloses the wagering system of claim 10, wherein the probabilities are shown as odds (see fig. 1; odds of winning or losing).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See references cited on PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD LANEAU whose telephone number is (571)272-6784. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7-5:30 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Ronald Laneau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights