Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-13, 15-19 and 21-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 8-13, 15-19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Every et al., US 2022/0358405 in view of Lythcott-Haims et al., US 2024/0163532.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, Every discloses a system for generating an interactive display, the system comprising: a memory storing instructions and a processor operatively connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to perform operations including:
receiving, by one or more processors, a plurality of real-time event data comprising a plurality of real-time event actions associated with a game identifier (paragraph 4 and 61);
generating, by the one or more processors, an event sequence based on the plurality of real-time event actions, wherein the event sequence is generated in real-time as the plurality of real-time event data is received (paragraph 4 and 61);
generating, by the one or more processors, the interactive display including at least a graphical representation of the event sequence, including one or more real-time event elements, and one or more interactive elements (paragraph 83), wherein the interactive display is formatted in real time as the plurality of real-time event data is received, and wherein the one or more interactive elements are configured to cause the interactive display to update the one or more real-time event elements in response to one or more user interactions (paragraph 61-62); and
transmitting, to a user interface and by the one or more processors, the interactive display (paragraph 4 and 27).
Every is silent about receiving, by one or more processors, a selection of a portion of the event sequence over a selected time period via an event element slider; based on the selection of the portion of the event sequence, updating, by the one or more processors, the interactive display to include a portion of the plurality of real-time event data related to the selected portion of the event sequence during the time period; and based on the selection of the portion, transmitting, to the user interface and by the one or more processors, the updated interactive display.
In an analogous art, Lythcott-Haims discloses receiving, by one or more processors, a selection of a portion of the event sequence over a selected time period via an event element slider; based on the selection of the portion of the event sequence, updating, by the one or more processors, the interactive display to include a portion of the plurality of real-time event data related to the selected portion of the event sequence during the time period; and based on the selection of the portion, transmitting, to the user interface and by the one or more processors, the updated interactive display (paragraph 394 and 428).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Every’s system with the teachings of Lythcott-Haims. This is standard. The motivation would have been to give the user an easy way of selecting the media for the benefit of providing quality of service.
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Every and Lythcott-Haims disclose the system of claim 8, wherein the interactive display is generated according to a set of filtering rules (Every paragraph 48-50 and 79-81).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, Every and Lythcott-Haims disclose the system of claim 9, wherein the set of filtering rules comprise a first filtering rule, the first filtering rule corresponding to displaying a first set of real-time event elements associated with a first event sequence period in response to a first user interaction (Every paragraph 48-50 and 79-81).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, Every and Lythcott-Haims disclose the system of claim 9, wherein the set of filtering rules comprise a second filtering rule, the second filtering rule corresponding to displaying a first set of real-time event statistics associated with a first event sequence period in response to a first user interaction (Every paragraph 48-50 and 79-81).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Every and Lythcott-Haims disclose the system of claim 8, wherein the plurality of real-time event actions include at least one of a scored goal, a completed pass, an interception, a goal conceded, or no action (Every figure 3).
Regarding claims 13 and 19, Every and Lythcott-Haims disclose the system of claim 8, wherein the one or more interactive elements are configured to cause the graphical representation of the event sequence to update in response to the one or more user interactions (Every paragraph 48-50 and 79-81).
Regarding claims 21-22, Every and Lythcott-Haims disclose claim 8, wherein the instructions to perform operations further include: generating, by the one or more processors, a textual machine-learning output based on one or more predictions, conclusions, or patterns identified using the plurality of real-time event data; and transmitting, to the user interface and by the one or more processors, the textual machine-learning output, wherein the textual machine-learning output is displayed in the interactive display and formatted in natural language (Every figure 7 paragraph 46-47).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Every in view of Lythcott-Haims in view of Dubin et al., US 2015/0058730.
Regarding claim 6, Every and Lythcott-Haims disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, by the one or more processors, a first subset of real-time event data of the plurality of real-time event data (Every paragraph 4 and 61).
Every and Lythcott-Haims are silent about providing, by the one or more processors, the first subset of real-time event data to a buffer.
In an analogous art, Dubin discloses providing, by the one or more processors, the first subset of real-time event data to a buffer (paragraph 59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Every and Lythcott-Haims’ method with the teachings of Dubin. The motivation would have been to have a smooth presentation of data for the benefit of providing quality of service.
Regarding claim 7, Every, Lythcott-Haims and Dubin disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 6, further comprising: receiving, by the one or more processors, a second subset of real-time event data of the plurality of real-time event data (Every paragraph 4 and 61; Dubin paragraph 59); providing, by the one or more processors, the second subset of real-time event data to the buffer (Every paragraph 4 and 61; Dubin paragraph 59); and
determining, by the one or more processors, that the plurality of real-time event data is completed based on the first subset of real-time event data and the second subset of real-time event data (Every paragraph 4 and 61; Dubin paragraph 59).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSCHTA I MONTOYA whose telephone number is (571)270-1192. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Flynn can be reached on 571-272-1915. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
OM
Oschta Montoya
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2421
/OSCHTA I MONTOYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights