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 .
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 limitations are:
by a/the pre-processing module of the computing system… in claims 1, 10, and 19;
by a/the spatial feature module of the computing system… in claims 2, 11, and 20;
by the spatial feature module of the computing system… in claims 3, and 12;
by a/the playing style module of the computing system … in claims 4 and 13;
by a machine learning module associated with the playing style module… in claims 5 and 14;
by the playing style module … in claims 5 and 14;
by a movement chain module of the computing system… in claims 6 and 15;
by a machine learning module associated with a player chain module of the computing system… in claims 7 and 16;
via the machine learning module associated with a possession value module of the computing system, … in claims 8 and 17;
by a gaussian mixture module associated with a role prediction module of the computing system … in claims 9 and 18;
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, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitations:
Regarding the various “modules” recited in the claims above:
With reference to paragraph [0032], specification recites “Role prediction platform120 may include one or more software modules. The one or more software modules may be collections of code or instructions stored on a media (e.g., memory of organization computing system 104) that represent a series of machine instructions (e.g., program code) that implements one or more algorithmic steps. Such machine instructions may be the actual computer code the processor of organization computing system104 interprets to implement the instructions or, alternatively, may be a higher level of coding of the instructions that is interpreted to obtain the actual computer code. The one or more software modules may also include one or more hardware components. One or more aspects of an example algorithm may be performed by the hardware components (e.g., circuitry) itself, rather as a result of the instructions”
Further, with reference to [0037], the specification recites “Figure 2 is a block diagram200illustrating role prediction platform120, according to example embodiments. Role prediction platform120 may include spatial feature module202, playing style module204, player chain module208, movement chain module210, possession value module212, passing/crossing risk module214, shooting features module216, and role prediction module218. Each of spatial feature module202, playing style module204, player chain module208, movement chain module210, possession value module212, passing/crossing risk module214, shooting features module216, and role prediction module218 may include one or more software modules. The one or more software modules may be collections of code or instructions stored on a media (e.g., memory of organization computing system 104) that represent a series of machine instructions (e.g., program code) that implements one or more algorithmic steps. Such machine instructions may be the actual computer code the processor of organization computing system104 interprets to implement the instructions or, alternatively, may be a higher level of coding of the instructions that is interpreted to obtain the actual computer code”
Since the claims 1-20 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and applicant’s specification describes with reference to the recited “modules” that they may be “collections of code or instructions stored on a media (e.g., memory of organization computing system104) that represent a series of machine instructions (e.g., program code) that implements one or more algorithmic steps” and “One or more aspects of an example algorithm may be performed by the hardware components (e.g., circuitry) itself, rather as a result of the instructions”, or hardware circuits configured to perform the respective functions the various modules are being interpreted as any combination of software (i.e., a set of instructions, software modules, one or more programs) and hardware or hardware circuits capable of performing the claimed functions.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's
interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding
structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the
drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
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 § 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.
Regarding Claim 1,
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a method for generating a role summary associated with one or more players, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“automatically transforming … the event information in a first format to generate a plurality of heat maps having a second format for each player of the one or more players, wherein the plurality of heat maps each identify one or more pass originations and one or more pass destinations based on the player motion data and the ball motion data”
“determine a number of factors corresponding to the one or more pass originations and the one or more pass destinations to identify in the plurality of heat maps”
“identifying …only the determined number of factors in the plurality of heat maps to output a spatial distribution for each player”
“generating …a context variable to pair with each player based on each output spatial distribution”
“encoding …each player and context variable as a one hot representation”
“identify …a potential role of each player based on each one hot representation”
“generating… one or more true and false pairs of players and context variables”
“determining …a playing style of a team associated with each player using the event information”
“determining …a subset of paths associated with each player using the event information”
“determining …a player involvement using the event information and the subset of paths”
“generating …a first score corresponding to a value associated with the player involvement”
“generating …a second score associated with a passing ability of each player using the event information”
“determining …a shot style of each player using the event information”
“generating …one or more clusters of players using the potential role…, the playing style, the subset of paths, the player involvement, the passing ability, and the shot style of each player, each cluster of players corresponding to a unique player role”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations:
various recitations of “by the computing system”
“providing, by the computing system, the plurality of heat maps to a machine- learning model trained to…”
“by the trained machine-learning model”
“providing, by the computing system, each one hot representation to a neural network trained, wherein the neural network is trained to…”
“ by a pre-processing module of the computing system”
“training, by the pre-processing module of the computing system, the neural network to learn associations between true and false pairs of players and context variables using the one or more true and false pairs that are generated”
“…identified by the trained neural network…”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations:
“capturing, by a tracking system, tracking data associated with the one or more players, wherein the tracking data comprises event information comprising player motion data and ball motion data during one or more events, and wherein the tracking system is in electronic communication with a computing system”
“transmitting by the computing system, a graphical user interface to a display of a user device, the graphical user interface including a text description of the unique player role associated with each cluster of players and players associated with each unique player role”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply” and “insignificant extra-solution activity”. Furter, the capturing and transmitting limitations recite the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network). Mere instructions to apply an exception, and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 2,
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to a method for generating a role summary associated with one or more players, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“identifying …coordinate data of each player of the one or more players from the event information”
“generating …a heat map illustrating a pass origin and pass destination for each pass initiated by each player of the one or more players”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“by a spatial feature module of the computing system”
“by the spatial feature module of the computing system”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3,
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a method for generating a role summary associated with one or more players, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“generating …as output, a plurality of factors that describe the spatial distribution of each player of the one or more players.”
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“by the spatial feature module of the computing system”
As drafted, is an additional element that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4,
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a method for generating a role summary associated with one or more players, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“identifying …each event of the one or more events in the event information”
“for each event, portioning …each event into a plurality of possessions, wherein each possession comprises one or more touches of a ball.”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“by a playing style module of the computing system”
“by the playing style module of the computing system”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 5,
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a method for generating a role summary associated with one or more players, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“assigning …a touch value to each touch of the one or more touches, wherein the touch value represents a type of touch”
“aggregating …each touch value to generate a weighted count for each player of the one or more players”
“generating …a vector output describing a team's playing structure based on the weighted count for each player of the one or more players associated with the team.”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“by a machine learning module associated with the playing style module”
“by the playing style module”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 6,
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a method for generating a role summary associated with one or more players, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“generating …one or more possession motifs, each possession motif configured to break down sequences of player combinations into chains of consecutive player possessions”
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“by a movement chain module of the computing system”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 7,
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a method for generating a role summary associated with one or more players, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“generating …a feature vector representing each player's involvement in a team's possession based on the chains of consecutive player possessions and the one or more possession motifs”
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“by a machine learning module associated with a player chain module of the computing system”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 8,
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a method for generating a role summary associated with one or more players, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“predicting …a probability of a goal being scored based on the chains of the consecutive player possessions”
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“via the machine learning module associated with a possession value module of the computing system”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 9,
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to a method for generating a role summary associated with one or more players, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“generating …the one or more clusters of players”
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“by a gaussian mixture module associated with a role prediction module of the computing system”
As drafted, is an additional element that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 10,
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising one or more sequences of instructions, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“automatically transforming … the event information in a first format to generate a plurality of heat maps having a second format for each player of the one or more players, wherein the plurality of heat maps each identify one or more pass originations and one or more pass destinations based on the player motion data and the ball motion data”
“determine a number of factors corresponding to the one or more pass originations and the one or more pass destinations to identify in the plurality of heat maps”
“identifying …only the determined number of factors in the plurality of heat maps to output a spatial distribution for each player”
“generating …a context variable to pair with each player based on each output spatial distribution”
“encoding …each player and context variable as a one hot representation”
“identify …a potential role of each player based on each one hot representation”
“generating …one or more true and false pairs of players and context variables”
“determining …a playing style of a team associated with each player using the event information”
“determining …a subset of paths associated with each player using the event information”
“determining …a player involvement using the event information and the subset of paths”
“generating …a first score corresponding to a value associated with the player involvement”
“generating …a second score associated with a passing ability of each player using the event information”
“determining …a shot style of each player using the event information”
“generating …one or more clusters of players using the potential role…, the playing style, the subset of paths, the player involvement, the passing ability, and the shot style of each player, each cluster of players corresponding to a unique player role”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations:
“A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising one or more sequences of instructions, which, when executed by one or more processors, causes a computing system to perform operations”
various recitations of “by the computing system”
“providing, by the computing system, the plurality of heat maps to a machine- learning model trained to…”
“by the trained machine-learning model”
“providing, by the computing system, each one hot representation to a neural network, wherein the neural network is trained to…”
“ by a pre-processing module of the computing system”
“training, by the pre-processing module of the computing system, the neural network to learn associations between true and false pairs of players and context variables using the one or more true and false pairs that are generated”
“…identified by the trained neural network…”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations:
“capturing, by a tracking system, tracking data associated with the one or more players, wherein the tracking data comprises event information comprising player motion data and ball motion data during one or more events, and wherein the tracking system is in electronic communication with a computing system”
“transmitting by the computing system, a graphical user interface to a display of a user device, the graphical user interface including a text description of the unique player role associated with each cluster of players and players associated with each unique player role”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply” and “insignificant extra-solution activity”. Furter, the capturing and transmitting limitations recite the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network). Mere instructions to apply an exception, and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 11,
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising one or more sequences of instructions, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“identifying …coordinate data of each player of the one or more players from the event information”
“generating …a heat map illustrating a pass origin and pass destination for each pass initiated by each player of the one or more players”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“by a spatial feature module of the computing system”
“by the spatial feature module of the computing system”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 12,
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising one or more sequences of instructions, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“generating …as output, a plurality of factors that describe the spatial distribution of each player of the one or more players”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“by the spatial feature module of the computing system”
As drafted, is an additional element that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 13,
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising one or more sequences of instructions, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“identifying …each event of the one or more events in the event information”
“for each event, portioning …each event into a plurality of possessions, wherein each possession comprises one or more touches of a ball.”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“by a playing style module of the computing system”
“by the playing style module of the computing system”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 14,
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising one or more sequences of instructions, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“assigning …a touch value to each touch of the one or more touches, wherein the touch value represents a type of touch”
“aggregating …each touch value to generate a weighted count for each player of the one or more players”
“generating …a vector output describing a team's playing structure based on the weighted count for each player of the one or more players associated with the team.”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“by a machine learning module associated with the playing style module”
“by the playing style module”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 15,
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising one or more sequences of instructions, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“generating …one or more possession motifs, each possession motif configured to break down sequences of player combinations into chains of consecutive player possessions”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“by a movement chain module of the computing system”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 16,
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising one or more sequences of instructions, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“generating …a feature vector representing each player's involvement in a team's possession based on the chains of consecutive player possessions and the one or more possession motifs”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“by a machine learning module associated with a player chain module of the computing system”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 17,
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 17 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising one or more sequences of instructions, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“predicting …a probability of a goal being scored based on the chains of the consecutive player possessions”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“via a second machine learning module associated with a possession value module of the computing system”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 18,
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 18 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising one or more sequences of instructions, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“generating… the one or more clusters of players”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“by a gaussian mixture module associated with a role prediction module of the computing system”
As drafted, is an additional element that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 19,
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 19 is directed to a system, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory having programming instructions stored thereon, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“automatically transforming … the event information in a first format to generate a plurality of heat maps having a second format for each player of the one or more players, wherein the plurality of heat maps each identify one or more pass originations and one or more pass destinations based on the player motion data and the ball motion data”
“determine a number of factors corresponding to the one or more pass originations and the one or more pass destinations to identify in the plurality of heat maps”
“identifying …only the determined number of factors in the plurality of heat maps to output a spatial distribution for each player”
“generating …a context variable to pair with each player based on each output spatial distribution”
“encoding …each player and context variable as a one hot representation”
“identify …a potential role of each player based on each one hot representation”
“generating …one or more true and false pairs of players and context variables”
“determining …a playing style of a team associated with each player using the event information”
“determining …a subset of paths associated with each player using the event information”
“determining …a player involvement using the event information and the subset of paths”
“generating …a first score corresponding to a value associated with the player involvement”
“generating …a second score associated with a passing ability of each player using the event information”
“determining …a shot style of each player using the event information”
“generating …one or more clusters of players using the potential role…, the playing style, the subset of paths, the player involvement, the passing ability, and the shot style of each player, each cluster of players corresponding to a unique player role”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations:
“A computing system, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory having programming instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the computing system to perform operations”
various recitations of “by the computing system”
“providing, by the computing system, the plurality of heat maps to a machine- learning model trained to…”
“by the trained machine-learning model”
“providing, by the computing system, each one hot representation to a neural network, wherein the neural network is trained to…”
“ by a pre-processing module of the computing system”
“training, by the pre-processing module of the computing system, the neural network to learn associations between true and false pairs of players and context variables using the one or more true and false pairs that are generated”
“…identified by the trained neural network…”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations:
“capturing, by a tracking system, tracking data associated with the one or more players, wherein the tracking data comprises event information comprising player motion data and ball motion data during one or more events, and wherein the tracking system is in electronic communication with the computing system”
“transmitting by the computing system, a graphical user interface to a display of a user device, the graphical user interface including a text description of the unique player role associated with each cluster of players and players associated with each unique player role”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply” and “insignificant extra-solution activity”. Furter, the capturing and transmitting limitations recite the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network). Mere instructions to apply an exception, and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 20,
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 20 is directed to a system, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory having programming instructions stored thereon, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“identifying …coordinate data of each player of the one or more players from the event information”
“generating …a heat map illustrating a pass origin and pass destination for each pass initiated by each player of the one or more players”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“by a spatial feature module of the computing system”
“by the spatial feature module of the computing system”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection applied under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant argues that independent claims 1, 10, and 19 do not recite an abstract idea (“Remarks”, Pg. 17). Applicant further asserts that the disclosed embodiments improve the functioning of a computing device and the functioning of the neural network recited in the claims by training the neural network in an improved way (“Remarks”, Pg. 17).
Applicant further argues that the amended limitations of the independent claims are analogous to the improved training discussed in Desjardins. Accordingly, considering Desjardins, applicant asserts the claimed neural network (as recited in the independent claims) is trained in an unsupervised manner by the pre-processing module to identify a potential role of each player using true and false pairs generated by the pre-processing module, which provides an improved neural network (“Remarks”, Pg. 18).
However, the claims recite at least the abstract idea of “identifying a potential role of each player based on each one hot representation”, which can be performed mentally with the assistance of pen and paper, by for example, “encoding” (i.e., identifying and transcribing on paper a relationship between a player and an association to that player,) the one-hot representations of the players and “context variables” (e.g., a label) and identifying (performing an and evaluation and judgement) a potential role of each player therefrom. Therefore, the claims recite at least an abstract idea.
Further, Desjardins included an improvement related to catastrophic forgetting while the current claims only use machine learning models at a high level to perform abstract ideas. Further, Desjardins provided a specific training strategy that allows the model to preserve performance on earlier tasks even as it learns new ones. The current claims merely employ using machine learning at a high level to perform abstract ideas. Even assuming the claims did recite an improvement, at best, it would be in the abstract idea of “identifying a potential role of each player based on each one hot representation”.
Applicant further argues that when considering paragraph [0052] specification, the recited training of the neural network improves upon existing neural networks at least by “generating, by a pre-processing module of the computing system, one or more true and false pairs of players and context variables" and "training, by the pre-processing module of the computing system, the neural network to learn associations between true and false pairs of players and context variables using the one or more true and false pairs that are generated," as recited in amended claim 1 (“Remarks”, Pgs. 18-19). Applicant further argues that even assuming the claims recite an abstract idea, the amended claims integrate any abstract ideas into a practical application (“Remarks”, Pg. 19).
However, as discussed above, even assuming the claims did recite an improvement, at best, it would be in the abstract idea of “identifying a potential role of each player based on each one hot representation”. Further, as discussed above in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 1 above, the “training” limitations recite additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), as the limitations recite a generic training step to train a neural network to perform an abstract idea and using machine learning at a high level to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the recited elements do not integrate any abstract ideas into a practical application, and the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding the rejection applied under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s amendment overcome the rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT NICHOLAS PRESSLY whose telephone number is (703)756-4639. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Kamran Afshar can be reached at (571) 272-7796. 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.
/KURT NICHOLAS PRESSLY/Examiner, Art Unit 2125
/KAMRAN AFSHAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2125
Prosecution Insights