DETAILED ACTION
The following NON-FINAL Office Action is in response to application 19/077709 filed on 03/12/2025.
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 . 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Priority
Examiner has noted that the Applicant has claimed priority from the provisional application 63/564413 filed on 03/12/2024.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “awarding points to users based on the results of the periodic quiz; holding a raffle for club prizes with entries based on the points”.
Examiner recommends Applicant amend Claim 1 to recite “awarding points to users based on the results of the periodic quiz; and holding a raffle for club prizes with entries based on the points”. Dependent Claims 2-20 inherit the objection as they do not cure the deficiencies of Claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 19 is 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 19 recites the limitation "the live event options" in “wherein the live event options include best player over a time period, best goal of a time period, best coach over a time period, or best team over a time period”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends Applicant amend Claim 18 to recite “allowing users to bid awarded points for a choice of live event options”.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, the claims all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A - Prong 1:
Independent Claim 1 recites:
allowing a plurality of users to enroll to use …
indexing each user as a fan of at least one of the clubs;
providing a periodic quiz based on information relevant to the club to each user that is indexed as a fan of the club;
awarding points to users based on the results of the periodic quiz;
holding a raffle for club prizes with entries based on the points.
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity
The limitations stated above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (commercial interactions or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people). Specifically, social activities between fans and a sports club in light of paragraph 3 of Applicant’s specification “enhancing fan engagement with sports…facilitates interactive activities such as quizzes, raffles, and live streams…integration of various user roles such as club users, player users, and influencer users”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The independent claim recites the additional element of a mobile application at a high level of generality such that when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, “providing a mobile application having at least one club page, each club page having information relevant to a club” may be also be considered as generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as the limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (a mobile application with a club page) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Thus, the claim as a whole, looking at additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components, or field of use which does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
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 a mobile application to perform the steps/functions recited above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Again, the limitation “providing a mobile application having at least one club page, each club page having information relevant to a club” may be also be considered as generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as the limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (a mobile application with a club page) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims.
None of the steps of Claim 1 when evaluated individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements are merely used to perform the limitations directed to the abstract idea, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, or field of use, thus, the analysis does not change when considered as an ordered combination. Thus, the additional elements do not meaningfully limit the claim. Accordingly, Claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent Claim 3 specifies further what the information relevant to the club is. Dependent Claim 4 specifies further a club user and what the club user may do on behalf of the club. Dependent Claim 5 and 6 specify further allowing a sports club super fan or influencer to enroll as influencer users. Dependent Claim 7 specifies further player users which are accounts for players that play for a club. Dependent Claim 9 specifies further the at least one influencer may create questions for viewers of the live stream and award points for correct responses. Such limitations are further directed to the abstract idea of “social activities” between fans and a sports club (and an influencer/player as well).
Dependent Claim 8 specifies further enabling at least one influencer to live stream during matches for a club which is further directed to the abstract idea of “social activities” between fans, a sports club, and an influencer. “Linking” may be considered as generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as the limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (the club page of the mobile application) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims.
Dependent Claim 2 specifies further that the at least one club is a member of at least one league and indexing fans of the club in the league as fans of the league which is further directed to the abstract idea of “social activities” between fans, a sports club, and a league. “Wherein each league has a league page” may be considered as generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as the limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (a mobile application with a club page and a league page) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. Dependent Claim 10 specifies further a league user and what the league user may do on behalf of the league.
Dependent Claim 11 and 12 specifies further that at least one of the clubs sponsors a raffle and provides the club prize and providing a schedule for clubs to sponsor the raffle prizes. Dependent Claim 13 specifies further allowing users to pay for extra quiz questions. Such limitations are further directed to the abstract idea of “social activities” between fans and a sports club.
Dependent Claim 14 specifies further generating quiz content which is further directed to the abstract idea of “social activities” between fans and a sports club. The artificial intelligence machine learning is recited at such a high level of generality such that when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components.
Dependent Claim 15 specifies further broadcasting the raffle live which is further directed to the abstract idea of “social activities” between fans and a sports club. The media channel may be considered as generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment as the abstract idea is limited to execution on a media channel.
Dependent Claims 16, 17, 18, and 19 specify further allowing users to vote/bid for a choice/option and what the choices/options may be. Dependent Claim 20 specifies further allowing users to predict a live event option. Such limitations are further directed to the abstract idea of “social activities” between fans and a sports club
Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in dependent claims 2-20 adds additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 1-20 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 11-12, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bokestad (US2016/0005135) in view of Bernard et al. (US2011/0281653) in view of Sternberg et al. (US2019/0099662).
As per independent Claim 1,
Bokestad teaches a method of driving fan interactions with a sports club, the method comprising the acts of: (para. 2 social network for celebrity/talent and fan interaction; para. 6 celebrity/talent used to refer to persons or groups of persons such as a sports team)
providing a mobile application having at least one club page, each club page having information relevant to a club (para. 14 online mobile application; figure 1 and para. 25 fans can search/browse celebrity/talent profiles or clubs; para. 45 John Doe’s club or profile content – posted information in a list of most recent post activity; para. 47 club owner can share content to a club owner feed)
allowing a plurality of users to enroll to use the application (para. 42 where club owners (reality stars, athletes, bloggers, organizations, sports clubs, etc.) can create profiles and para. 43 fans (also known as user-followers or users) can create and/or register a profile to use the social network)
indexing each user as a fan of at least one of the clubs (para. 9-12 definitions of followed user, user follower, follower, and subscriber; para. 14 celebrities/talent can start a fan club and fans can follow/join the club; para. 44-46 where in para. 45 where a user can “follow” or “subscribe” to the celebrity/talent’s profile or club; figure 1 and para. 52-53 fans can browse clubs and join)
providing a communication to each user that is indexed as a fan of the club (para. 13 and 19 celebrities can initiate communications with fans where the communications may include live stream video, polls, question and answer content, etc.; see also para. 47 where club owner can share content to a club owner feed; figure 2 and para. 54 club owner can share content with their fans)
Examiner noting that Bokestad teaches sports clubs may live stream to their fans and provide their fans with polls or question and answer content.
Bokestad does not teach, but Bernard teaches:
providing a periodic quiz based on information relevant to the club (para. 28 and 31 series of questions based on the live sporting event; para. 32-34 identifying broadcast events matching user’s preferences; para. 36-37 generating sports related questions based on teams associated with the event; figure 15 and para. 168 “fans of” the sports teams playing)
awarding points to users based on the results of the periodic quiz (para. 38-40 where the correct answers are tallied and users are ranked; para. 41 determine and award winners; figure 13 and para. 59-61 each question has a point value)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Bokestad invention with Bernard with the motivation of improving fan experiences.
See para. 27-28 of Bernard “Example embodiments include methods and interfaces for interactive online gaming which provide an enriched user experience geared towards providing fulfilling gaming experiences including group gaming, fantasy role and sports gaming, and other similar experiences based upon a live broadcast event. For example, an interactive game may be based upon a live sporting event or entertainment event. Prior to broadcast of the event, a series of questions and/or other prompts may be established based upon the event. These questions and prompts may be organized, stored, and served to a user or group of users before, during, and after the event, thereby providing an immersive viewing experience which enriches a user's perception of the event and may provide more satisfaction as compared to gaming and viewing as separate experiences.”
Examiner noting that Bernard in para. 41 teaches using user answers to determine and award winners, prizes may be awarded, and announcing the winner’s name.
Bokestad/Bernard does not teach, but Sternberg teaches:
holding a raffle for club prizes with entries based on the points (figure 1 and para. 21 plurality of tickets acquirable by participants in the game, entry in a ticket pool corresponding to ticket acquired by participant, and drawing an entry from the ticket pool and awarding a prize to the participant who owns the drawn ticket; para. 38 prize may be experiential (tickets, passes, memorabilia); para. 40 participants earn points for performing actions such as participating in event-related games or game-related question and answer sessions and points may be converted into tickets; para. 41 event is a major sporting event; para. 50-59 where experiential prizes include NFL season tickets, super bowl tickets for life, player meet and greets, etc.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Bokestad invention with Sternberg with the motivation of incentivizing fan participation (for example, to attend or watch the sporting event).
See Sternberg para. 42 “The game according to some embodiments of the present disclosure has been shown to be attractive to regular lottery players, to attract new or non-traditional participants to lottery-type games, and make it more likely that those participants would attend or watch the Event.” See also para. 65-88 for additional motivation.
As per dependent Claim 3,
Bokestad/Bernard/Sternberg teaches the method of claim 1.
Bokestad does not teach, but Bernard teaches:
wherein the information relevant to the club is related to at least one of players that play for the club, personnel of the club, history of the club, recent game results for the club, and club branding and marketing materials (para. 38 questions related to a current baseball player, history of the player or expected outcome of the player’s performance; para. 62- 166 where in para. 63 questions directed towards a broadcast baseball game event; para. 28 and 31 series of questions based on the live sporting event; para. 32-34 identifying broadcast events matching user’s preferences; para. 36-37 generating sports related questions based on teams associated with the event; figure 15 and para. 168 “fans of” the sports teams playing)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Bokestad invention with Bernard with the motivation of improving fan experiences. See para. 27-28 of Bernard.
As per dependent Claim 4,
Bokestad/Bernard/Sternberg teaches the method of claim 1.
Bokestad further teaches:
wherein the club page has a club user that is an official account that manages the club profile, uploads club video and news and is enabled to follow or unfollow users on behalf of the club (para. 42 club owners can have several user profiles that have access to administrate the formed club (“manages”); para. 45 and 47 club owner can share content such as video, text, images, etc. to a club owner feed (“uploads”); para. 49 the club owner can like, share, and comment on content; para. 50 club owner can select fans/users to communicate with; para.54 and figure 2 club owners can share content with fans; figure 6 and para. 58 the club owner can block a follower/member or select fan/users and “like” them (“enabled”))
As per dependent Claim 6,
Bokestad/Bernard/Sternberg teaches the method of claim 1.
Bokestad further teaches:
allowing at least one influencer to enroll as influencer users by applying for an influencer account (para. 42 “club owners” may be reality stars, athletes, bloggers known as “followed-users” – Examiner noting that any of these users may be an influencer; further in para. 42 the followed-users may create profiles as the basis for the initiation and growth of celebrity/fan communities on the system)
As per dependent Claim 9,
Bokestad/Bernard/Sternberg teaches the method of claim 6.
Bokestad teaches:
wherein the at least one influencer is enabled to create questions (para. 42 “club owners” may be reality stars, athletes, bloggers known as “followed-users” – Examiner noting that any of these users may be an influencer; para. 13 and 19 followed-users can initiate communications with fans where the communications may include live stream video, polls, question and answer content, etc.; see also para. 47 where club owner can share content to a club owner feed; figure 2 and para. 54 club owner can share content with their fans)
Bokestad does not teach, but Bernard teaches:
create questions for viewers of the live stream and award points for correct responses (para. 27 interactive online gaming during broadcast sporting events; para. 28 and 31 series of questions based on the live sporting event and the new questions may be established during broadcast of the event; para. 32-34 identifying broadcast events matching user’s preferences; para. 36-37 generating sports related questions based on teams associated with the event; figure 15 and para. 168 “fans of” the sports teams playing; para. 38-40 where the correct answers are tallied and users are ranked; para. 41 determine and award winners; figure 13 and para. 59-61 each question has a point value)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Bokestad invention with Bernard with the motivation of improving fan experiences. See para. 27-28, 31 of Bernard.
As per dependent Claim 7,
Bokestad/Bernard/Sternberg teaches the method of claim 1.
Bokestad further teaches:
player users that are official accounts for players that play for a club (see Bokestad para. 42 athletes can create profiles as club owners and club owners can have several user profiles that have access to administrate the club which is useful if club owners are a team; para. 6 sports teams referred to as celebrity/talent)
As per dependent Claim 8,
Bokestad/Bernard/Sternberg teaches the method of claim 1.
Bokestad further teaches:
enabling at least one influencer to live stream and linking the live stream to the club page of the club (para. 42 “club owners” may be reality stars, athletes, bloggers known as “followed-users” – Examiner noting that any of these users may be an influencer; para. 13 and para. 19 the followed-user can live stream video; Figure 2 and para. 26 celebrity/talent can share content (live stream video) to the profile/club; para. 47 club owner can share live stream video to a club owner feed)
Bokestad does not teach, but Bernard teaches:
Live stream during matches for a club (para. 27 live broadcast event and para. 28 live sporting event and questions may be provided to users during the event; para. 30 online streaming of a live or broadcast event; see also para. 40, 47-48, 168 sports games)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Bokestad invention with Bernard with the motivation of improving fan experiences.
See para. 27-28 of Bernard “Example embodiments include methods and interfaces for interactive online gaming which provide an enriched user experience geared towards providing fulfilling gaming experiences including group gaming, fantasy role and sports gaming, and other similar experiences based upon a live broadcast event. For example, an interactive game may be based upon a live sporting event or entertainment event. Prior to broadcast of the event, a series of questions and/or other prompts may be established based upon the event. These questions and prompts may be organized, stored, and served to a user or group of users before, during, and after the event, thereby providing an immersive viewing experience which enriches a user's perception of the event and may provide more satisfaction as compared to gaming and viewing as separate experiences.”
As per dependent Claim 11,
Bokestad/Bernard/Sternberg teaches the method of claim 1.
Bokestad/Bernard does not teach, but Sternberg teaches:
wherein at least one of the clubs sponsors a raffle and provides the club prize (para. 38 prize may be experiential (tickets, passes, memorabilia); para. 50-59 where experiential prizes include NFL season tickets, super bowl tickets for life, player meet and greets, etc.); para. 42 tickets present a sponsorship opportunity that can be monetized; para. 43 24 teams from NFL received licensing agreements through lottery games; para. 75-77 partner with NFL for all experiential prizes and sponsorship opportunity attached to the raffle)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Bokestad invention with Sternberg with the motivation of incentivizing fan participation (for example, to attend or watch the sporting event).
See Sternberg para. 42 “The game according to some embodiments of the present disclosure has been shown to be attractive to regular lottery players, to attract new or non-traditional participants to lottery-type games, and make it more likely that those participants would attend or watch the Event.” See also para. 65-88 for additional motivation.
As per dependent Claim 12,
Bokestad/Bernard/Sternberg teaches the method of claim 11.
Bokestad/Bernard does not teach, but Sternberg teaches:
providing a schedule for clubs to sponsor raffle prizes (para. 36 drawings timed to correspond with specific event and para. 37 drawing is held during the game; para. 38 when a participant’s ticket is chosen during a drawing the participant wins a prize and the prize may be experiential (tickets, passes, memorabilia); see also para. 39 and 41 where the serials of drawings made at predetermined intervals based on the Superbowl, for example 53 drawings that take place leading up to the Superbowl; para. 50-59 where experiential prizes include NFL season tickets, super bowl tickets for life, player meet and greets, etc.); para. 42 tickets present a sponsorship opportunity that can be monetized; para. 43 24 teams from NFL received licensing agreements through lottery games; para. 75-77 partner with NFL for all experiential prizes and sponsorship opportunity attached to the raffle)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Bokestad invention with Sternberg with the motivation of incentivizing fan participation (See Sternberg para. 42) and providing an opportunity for monetization (para. 42 and also para. 75-77).
As per dependent Claim 15,
Bokestad/Bernard/Sternberg teaches the method of claim 1.
Examiner noting that Bernard in para. 41 teaches a live announcer or on-air talent may announce the winner’s name.
Bokestad/Bernard does not teach, but Sternberg teaches:
broadcasting the raffle live on a media channel (para. 73-74 live drawings during broadcast of games and drawings revealed first on NFL mobile app, NFL network, and all team websites; para. 21 raffle drawing; para. 36 drawings timed to correspond with specific event and para. 37 drawing is held during the game; see also para. 39 and 41)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Bokestad invention with Sternberg with the motivation of incentivizing fan participation (for example, to attend or watch the sporting event).
See Sternberg para. 42 “The game according to some embodiments of the present disclosure has been shown to be attractive to regular lottery players, to attract new or non-traditional participants to lottery-type games, and make it more likely that those participants would attend or watch the Event.” See also para. 65-88 for additional motivation.
As per dependent Claim 20,
Bokestad/Bernard/Sternberg teaches the method of claim 1.
Bokestad does not teach, but Bernard teaches:
allowing users to predict a live event option (para. 36-37 where questions/content based on a broadcast event are generated and presented to users; para. 63-166 where in para. 63 the questions directed towards a broadcast baseball game event include “prediction” type questions such as para. 70 “Of the following players, who will be the first to action in the game” and para. 83-87 “who will accumulate the most action in the game?” where the action is a home run, single, double, etc.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Bokestad invention with Bernard with the motivation of improving fan experiences.
See para. 27-28 of Bernard “Example embodiments include methods and interfaces for interactive online gaming which provide an enriched user experience geared towards providing fulfilling gaming experiences including group gaming, fantasy role and sports gaming, and other similar experiences based upon a live broadcast event. For example, an interactive game may be based upon a live sporting event or entertainment event. Prior to broadcast of the event, a series of questions and/or other prompts may be established based upon the event. These questions and prompts may be organized, stored, and served to a user or group of users before, during, and after the event, thereby providing an immersive viewing experience which enriches a user's perception of the event and may provide more satisfaction as compared to gaming and viewing as separate experiences.” See also para. 37 “Therefore, example embodiments provide on-the-fly content to users which may be updated periodically or continuously during a broadcast event, thereby improving a user's experience.”
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bokestad (US2016/0005135) in view of Bernard et al. (US2011/0281653) in view of Sternberg et al. (US2019/0099662) as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Muthukumar (US2017/0099253).
As per dependent Claim 2,
Bokestad/Bernard/Sternberg teaches the method of claim 1.
Examiner noting that Bokestad teaches in para. 42 club owners may be athletes, organizations, sport clubs, etc.
Bokestad/Bernard does not teach, but Sternberg teaches:
wherein the at least one club is a member of at least one league (para. 43 National Football League has 24 teams)
wherein each league has a league page (para. 74 NFL mobile app, NFL network and all team websites)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Bokestad invention with Sternberg with the motivation of increasing convenience for fans who wish to view both club and league information on the mobile application.
See Sternberg para. 42 and para. 72-74 “Increase viewership…Drawings revealed first on NFL mobile app, NFL network”.
Bokestad/Bernard/Sternberg does not teach, but Muthukumar teaches:
the method further comprising indexing the users who are fans of a club in the league as fans of the league (para. 6 when a user follows a moment, the social media platform may inject social media messages of users linked to the moment into the user’s home page or timeline for example, the social media platform may inject feeds of both teams participating in the game and the NFL itself into the user’s timeline; para. 19 moments can be categorized by topics such as sports; para. 25 and 28 live sporting events)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Bokestad invention with Muthukumar with the motivation of providing convenience for fans to find social media posts/messages relevant to their interests.
See para. 7 “As a result, users are unburdened from searching through the thousands of social media messages to find the most interesting ones, and/or relating to a particular event of interest, and/or identifying the right hashtags and sources for a particular event of interest.”
As per dependent Claim 10,
Bokestad/Bernard/Sternberg/Muthukumar teaches the method of claim 2.
Bokestad further teaches:
wherein the organization page has an organization user that is an official account that manages the organization profile, uploads organization video and news and is enabled to follow or unfollow users on behalf of the organization (para. 42 organizations can be club owners and club owners can have several user profiles that have access to administrate the formed club (“manages”); para. 45 and 47 club owner can share content such as video, text, images, etc. to a club owner feed (“uploads”); para. 49 the club owner can like, share, and comment on content; para. 50 club owner can select fans/users to communicate with; para.54 and figure 2 club owners can share content with fans; figure 6 and para. 58 the club owner can block a follower/member or select fan/users and “like” them (“enabled”))
Bokestad/Bernard does not teach, but Sternberg teaches:
league (para. 43 National Football League has 24 teams; para. 74 NFL mobile app, NFL network and all team websites)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Bokestad invention with Sternberg with the motivation of increasing convenience for fans who wish to view both club and league information on the mobile application.
See Sternberg para. 42 and para. 72-74 “Increase viewership…Drawings revealed first on NFL mobile app, NFL network”.
Additionally, since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of league of Sternberg for the organization of Bokestad. Both are organizations interacting with fans. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bokestad (US2016/0005135) in view of Bernard et al. (US2011/0281653) in view of Sternberg et al. (US2019/0099662) as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of non-patent literature Greenfly (“Social Media in Sports: Driving Fan Engagement” captured on October 2, 2023 https://web.archive.org/web/20231002091315/https://www.greenfly.com/blog/social-media-in-sports/ )
As per dependent Claim 5,
Bokestad/Bernard/Sternberg teaches the method of claim 1.
Bokestad further teaches:
allowing a user to enroll as influencer users by applying for an influencer account (para. 42 “club owners” may be reality stars, athletes, bloggers known as “followed-users” – Examiner noting that any of these users may be an influencer; further in para. 42 the followed-users may create profiles as the basis for the initiation and growth of celebrity/fan communities on the system)
Bokestad/Bernard/Sternberg does not teach, but Greenfly teaches:
sports club super fans (page 1 “turn…superfans into influencers”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Bokestad invention with Greenfly with the motivation of increasing fan engagement (page 1 and 6)
Additionally, since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of sports club super fans of Greenfly for the user of Bokestad. Both are users who wish to become influencers on social media. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bokestad (US2016/0005135) in view of Bernard et al. (US2011/0281653) in view of Sternberg et al. (US2019/0099662) as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Simon (US2018/0082544).
As per dependent Claim 13,
Bokestad/Bernard/Sternberg teaches the method of claim 1.
Examiner noting Bernard teaches in figure 5 and para. 41 generating bonus questions.
Bokestad/Bernard/Sternberg does not teach, but Simon teaches:
allowing users to pay for extra quiz questions (para. 4 question categories include sporting events and para. 5 daily matchup question could require a prediction of the number of homeruns to be hit in a game played that day; para. 6-7 points awarded for correct answers and the participant may buy another ten questions; para. 13 questions related to upcoming baseball games; para. 34 buy back another set of ten trivia questions at a cost of 99 cents or the equivalent in reward points)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Bokestad invention with Simon with the motivation of monetization of the mobile app features.
See Simon para. 7 “An e-commerce component of the game handles transactions involving participants' reward points, including redemption of points for specific rewards, as well as in participant's “buy back” payments for additional trivia questions” and para. 10 “The game incentivizes players' social media activity, which promotes the game and increases the value of its e-commerce component, thereby attracting corporate sponsorship and involvement of third-party fulfillment services.”
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bokestad (US2016/0005135) in view of Bernard et al. (US2011/0281653) in view of Sternberg et al. (US2019/0099662) as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Bright et al. (US2025/0139375).
As per dependent Claim 14,
Bokestad/Bernard/Sternberg teaches the method of claim 1.
Bokestad/Bernard/Sternberg does not teach, but Bright teaches:
generating quiz content through artificial intelligence machine learning (figure 4 and para. 72-100 where in para. 73 a user inputs a topic request such as “10 science questions about dogs”, in para. 75 one or more agents are neural networks, and in para. 77 an agent generates an initial set of questions based on the user’s request; see also figure 5 and para. 101-103)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Bokestad invention with Bright with the motivation of providing fans with a consistent gameplay experience and accurate information.
See Bright para. 22 “maintains user trust and creates a consistent gameplay experience” and para. 24-25 “The validation framework enables various additional technical advantages. For example, the validation framework addresses the potential for erroneous, misleading, or otherwise undesirable responses from the generative AI engine by implementing multiple layers of validation on both the user input and the model output. For example, accuracy checks cross-reference the AI's responses with external knowledge databases and sources to ensure the accuracy of the information provided.”
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bokestad (US2016/0005135) in view of Bernard et al. (US2011/0281653) in view of Sternberg et al. (US2019/0099662) as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Evans et al. (US2014/0068665).
As per dependent Claim 16,
Bokestad/Bernard/Sternberg teaches the method of claim 1.
Examiner noting that Bokestad teaches the sports club may communicate polls to their fans in para. 13, 19, 47.
Bokestad/Bernard/Sternberg does not teach, but Evans teaches:
allowing users to vote for a choice of at least one of a sport event or a live match option (para. 23 presenting interaction packages to users based on metadata associated with content such as live events (sporting events); para. 91 cast a vote tied to a live sporting event; para. 94-95 a user watches a live play event and votes on performance of an athlete, team, coach, etc.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Bokestad invention with Evans with the motivation of providing fans with entertaining experiences which do not need to be created ahead of time.
See Evans para. 24 “the disclosed embodiment relates to creating interaction packages (otherwise referred to herein as entertaining experiences) utilizing metadata (that either currently exists or is created by individuals or generated programmatically) or by utilizing data resulting from those entertainment experiences to in turn create new experiences (user-generated data for example)” and para. 41 “By using metadata associated with content to enable the creation of an interaction package or entertainment experience, an interactive experience can be presented to a user, for example, on a second screen that the user is using. The resulting entertainment experience uses metadata to present the user with challenges, problems, games, and the like to complete individually or in which to compete. There is no need for the entertaining experience or interaction package to exist prior to the broadcast of the content, in contrast to games that are designed specifically designed or created utilizing custom data associated with a TV show, for example.”
As per dependent Claim 17,
Bokestad/Bernard/Sternberg/Evans teaches the method of claim 16.
Bokestad/Bernard/Sternberg does not teach, but Evans teaches:
wherein the live match option is at least one of a man of the match, a best goal, a best play, a best comment, or a best broadcast moment (para. 23 presenting interaction packages to users based on metadata associated with content such as live events (sporting events); para. 91 cast a vote tied to a live sporting event; para. 94-95 a user watches a live play event and votes on performance of an athlete, team, coach, etc. such as MVP players or best plays)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Bokestad invention with Evans with the motivation of providing fans with entertaining experiences which do not need to be created ahead of time. See Evans para. 24 and para. 41.
As per dependent Claim 18,
Bokestad/Bernard/Sternberg teaches the method of claim 1.
Examiner noting that Bokestad teaches the sports club may communicate polls to their fans in para. 13, 19, 47.
Bokestad/Bernard/Sternberg does not teach, but Evans teaches:
allowing users to bid awarded points for a choice of event options (para. 23 presenting interaction packages to users based on metadata associated with content such as live events (sporting events); para. 91 cast a vote tied to a live sporting event; para. 94-95 a user watches a live play event and votes on performance of an athlete, team, coach, etc.; para. 66 voting may use various systems like points, dollars, thumbs up/down and points are awarded based on the user’s answer; para. 59, 62 user is awarded points)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Bokestad invention with Evans with the motivation of providing fans with entertaining experiences which do not need to be created ahead of time.
See Evans para. 24 “the disclosed embodiment relates to creating interaction packages (otherwise referred to herein as entertaining experiences) utilizing metadata (that either currently exists or is created by individuals or generated programmatically) or by utilizing data resulting from those entertainment experiences to in turn create new experiences (user-generated data for example)” and para. 41 “By using metadata associated with content to enable the creation of an interaction package or entertainment experience, an interactive experience can be presented to a user, for example, on a second screen that the user is using. The resulting entertainment experience uses metadata to present the user with challenges, problems, games, and the like to complete individually or in which to compete. There is no need for the entertaining experience or interaction package to exist prior to the broadcast of the content, in contrast to games that are designed specifically designed or created utilizing custom data associated with a TV show, for example.”
As per dependent Claim 19,
Bokestad/Bernard/Sternberg/Evans teaches the method of claim 18.
Bokestad/Bernard/Sternberg does not teach, but Evans teaches:
wherein the live event options include best player over a time period, best goal of a time period, best coach over a time period, or best team over a time period (para. 23 presenting interaction packages to users based on metadata associated with content such as live events (sporting events); para. 91 cast a vote tied to a live sporting event; para. 94-95 a user watches a live play event and votes on performance of an athlete, team, coach, etc. such as MVP players or best plays – Examiner interpreting “over a time period” as during the live sporting event so the MVP player is the best player during the live sporting event)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Bokestad invention with Evans with the motivation of providing fans with entertaining experiences which do not need to be created ahead of time. See Evans para. 24 and para. 41.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kivirauma et al. (US2014/0280209)
Ball et al. (US2014/0171179)
Valle (US2023/0026561)
Haith (US2020/0342547)
Xiao et al. (US2023/0177621)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lisa Ma whose telephone number is (571)272-2495. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7 AM - 5 PM.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571)272-5587. 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.
/L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628