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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Final Office action is in reply to the Applicant amendment filed on 09 December 2025.
2. Claims 1, 14, 21, 28-28 have been amended.
3. Claims 1-6, 14-20, 21-28 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
In the previous office action, Claims 1-6, 14-20, 21-28 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (abstract idea). Applicants have not amended Claims to provide statutory support and the rejection is maintained.
In the previous office action, Claims 1-6, 14-20, 21-28 were under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement as reciting subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the Application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention as well as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. Although Applicant has removed the previous subject matter in concern, Applicant has now introduced new subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the Application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In response under a new grounds of rejection, the rejection is maintained. See below for further clarification.
In the previous Office action, Claims 1-6, 14-20, 21-28 were 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. Although Applicant has removed the previous subject matter in concern, Applicant has now introduced new subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the Application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In response under a new grounds of rejection, the rejection is maintained. See below for further clarification.
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the remarks regarding the 35 USC § 101 rejection for Claims 1-6, 14-20, 21-28, Applicant argues that: (1) the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and even if they were, they would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Still commensurate to the two-part subject matter eligibility framework decision in the Federal court decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al., (Alice), 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) and the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (“October 2019 Update), and the “July 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, including on Artificial Intelligence”, and the Examiner details the maintained rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 in the below rejection with further explanation. Applicant argues that as amended, Applicant states: “…the claims as a whole integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”; “…submits that independent claim 1 is similar in structure to eligible claim 1 in example 37 of the 2019 PEG Examples” (see Remarks/Arguments pages 17-22). However the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Applicant states: “…submits that independent claim 1 is similar in structure to eligible claim 1 in example 37 of the 2019 PEG Examples”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees here because Example 37 pertains to a method of rearranging icons on a graphical user interface (GUI) of a computer system. Example 37 Claim 1 recited the combination of additional elements of receiving, via a GUI, a user selection to organize each icon based on the amount of use of each icon, a processor for performing the determining step, and automatically moving the most used icons to a position on the GUI closest to the start icon of the computer system based on the determined amount of use. Here, this example reflected automatically moving “software object icons” within the GUI interface based on “most used icons to a position on the GUI closest to the start icon of the computer system”. This reflected an improvement to technology in the software-arts and an improved field of use for reciting additional elements for a specific manner of automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage, and thus was deemed patent eligible over step 2a prong 2. In contrast to Example 37, example claim 1, for instance, there is no improvement to technology or an improved field of use recited for representative Independent Claim 1. The instant claimed invention and Example 37 have different claim sets and different fact patterns, and therefore the two are not analogous. Second, because Applicant states “…the claims as a whole integrate the judicial exception into a practical application” the Examiner disagrees in at least representative Claim 1 recites:
Mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships; mathematical calculations. The claim uses "one or more prediction models" to calculate a "short-term match outcome". Predicting outcomes based on player statistics, strength metrics (e.g., probability models, algorithms for forecasting, regression analysis applied to strength metrics), and positional data is fundamentally a mathematical manipulation of numbers.
Certain methods of organizing human activity –managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions; business methods. The system at least provides a "user selection to display an updated predicted short-term match outcome based on replacing a player". This is a strategic decision-making process for managing team composition, similar to an economic or business decision (e.g., team lineup management and strategic simulation).
Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The process of reviewing player statistics (historical data), comparing team strengths (metrics), and forming a judgment about a likely outcome is a "mental process" performed by coaches and analysts daily (e.g., evaluating player performance, estimating impact of player substitutions). See MPEP § 2106.04(a) II C. Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A Prong one. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components. In summary as indicated below through Steps 1-2B, the recitation of a computer (one or more processors) to perform the claim limitations amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant submits that: (2) Ruiz et al. (Ruiz) (US 2019/0224556) in view of Chang et al. (Chang) (US 2017/0238055) does not teach or suggest in amended Claim 1: basically the new amendments that are further rejected from the current and maintained cited prior art [see Remarks pages 22-24]. With regard to argument (2), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123. The Examiner has a duty and responsibility to the public and to Applicant to interpret the claims as broadly as reasonably possible during prosecution. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1 393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969).
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 1-6, 14-20, 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims as a whole recite certain grouping of an abstract idea and are analyzed in the following step process:
Claims 1-6, 14-20, 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims as a whole recite certain grouping of an abstract idea (see “USPTO 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance issued January 7, 2019”, citing “Federal Register 50 Vol 84 No 4 Monday January 7 2019”, p.51, 3rd column to p.53 1st column, p.54 further corroborated by USPTO’s “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), Advanced Module PowerPoint Slides” Slide 17), the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (“October 2019 Update”), and additional examples published July 2024 for claims reciting artificial intelligence, machine learning, and neural network and are analyzed in the following step process:
Step 1: Claims 1-6, 14-20, 21-28 are each focused to a statutory category of invention namely “method, system, non-transitory computer readable” sets.
Step 2A: Prong One: Claims 1-6, 14-20, 21-28 recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely, the claims as a whole recite certain methods of organizing human activity that encompass processing information by reciting steps of receiving data, running a model, and displaying an outcome based on that model. These steps describe the abstract concepts of:
“receiving, by a computing system, a pre-game lineup of a team against a target opponent, wherein the pre-game lineup includes a representation of a first set of players starting a game against the target opponent;
retrieving, by the computing system, a first set of historical data for the first set of players in the pre- game lineup and team-specific information, wherein the first set of historical data includes player identity data for the first set of players and player and player positional data for the first set of players, and wherein the team-specific information includes a team strength metric;
retrieving, by the computing system, a second set of historical data for each player of the target opponent and target opponent-specific information, wherein the target opponent-specific information includes an opposition strength metric;
utilizing, by the computing system, one or more prediction models to predict a short-term match outcome based on the first set of historical data and the second set of historical data;
displaying, by the computing system, a graphical user interface (GUI) including the representation of the first set of players starting the game, a second player not starting the game, and the predicted short-term match outcome;
receiving, via the GUI, a user selection to display an updated predicted short-term match outcome based on replacing a player from the first set of players with the second player;
extracting current game context from a game file, wherein the current game context includes two-dimensional player positional information, for a plurality of frames, generated by a tracking system;
determining, by the computing system, via the one or more prediction models, the updated predicted short-term match outcome based on replacing the player from the first set of players with the second player and the current game context;
and automatically moving, by the computing system, a representation of the second player to a respective in-game lineup position in the GUI and further automatically updating the GUI to replace the predicted short-term match outcome with the updated predicted short-term match outcome”
The claims as a whole recite certain groupings under the categories:
Mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships; mathematical calculations The claim uses "one or more prediction models" to calculate a "short-term match outcome". Predicting outcomes based on player statistics, strength metrics (e.g., probability models, algorithms for forecasting, regression analysis applied to strength metrics), and positional data is fundamentally a mathematical manipulation of numbers.
Certain methods of organizing human activity –managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions; business methods. The system at least provides a "user selection to display an updated predicted short-term match outcome based on replacing a player". This is a strategic decision-making process for managing team composition, similar to an economic or business decision (e.g., team lineup management and strategic simulation).
Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The process of reviewing player statistics (historical data), comparing team strengths (metrics), and forming a judgment about a likely outcome is a "mental process" performed by coaches and analysts daily (e.g., evaluating player performance, estimating impact of player substitutions). See MPEP § 2106.04(a) II C. Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A Prong one. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components.
Prong Two: Claims 1-6, 14-20, 21-28: With regard to this step of the analysis (as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims contain computer components (computing system; processor; memory, graphical user interface, prediction models, etc.) (e.g., see Applicants’ published Specification ¶'s 4-6, 19-27) that are cited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) (“The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point”). See also Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1377, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1547 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (steps of DNA amplification and analysis are not “sufficient” to render claim 1 patent eligible merely because they are physical steps). Conversely, the presence of a non-physical or intangible additional element does not doom the claims, because tangibility is not necessary for eligibility under the Alice/Mayo test. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 118 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“that the improvement is not defined by reference to ‘physical’ components does not doom the claims”). See also McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102 (Fed. Cir. 2016), (holding that a process producing an intangible result (a sequence of synchronized, animated characters) was eligible because it improved an existing technological process). Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (h).
Step 2B: As explained in MPEP § 2106.05, Claims 1-6, 14-20, 21-28 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea nor recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements of “computing system; processor; memory, graphical user interface, prediction models, etc. are generically-recited computer-related elements that amount to a mere instruction to “apply it” (the abstract idea) on the computer-related elements (see MPEP § 2106.05 (f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). These additional elements in the claims are recited at a high level of generality and are merely limiting the field of use of the judicial exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (h) – Field of Use and Technological Environment). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the function of a computer or improves any other technology. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible.
Examiner interprets that the steps of the claimed invention both individually and as an ordered combination result in Mere Instructions to Apply a Judicial Exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (f)). These claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism used for accomplishing the result. Here, the claims utilize a computer or other machinery (e.g., see Applicants’ published Specification ¶'s 4-6, 19-27) regarding using existing computer processors as well as program products comprising machine-readable media for carrying or having machine-executable instructions or data structures stored. “computing environment 100” in its ordinary capacity for performing tasks (e.g., to receive, analyze, transmit and display data) and/or use computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice and certain methods of organization human activities) and does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Software implementations are accomplished with standard programming techniques with logic to perform connection steps, processing steps, comparison steps and decisions steps. These claims are directed to being a commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer (see Alice Corp. Pty, Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int' l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014)); Versata Dev. Group, Inc., v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 D.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) and require the use of software such as via a server to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer. Based on all these, Examiner finds that when viewed either individually or in combination, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) that raise to the high standards of eligibility to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea(s) such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-6, 14-20, 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea exception) without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph The of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 14-20, 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Independent Claims 1, 14, 21 recite: “extracting; automatically moving; automatically” in the instant specification nor how these indefinite terms are accomplished. For examination purposes the Examiner will interpret this new matter in the broadest and most reasonable manner with little to no patentable weight given. Correction and or clarification is required.
Claims 1-6, 14-20, 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Independent Claims 1, 14, 21 recite: “extracting; automatically moving; automatically”. There is no recitation of how “extracting; automatically moving; automatically” is accomplished. For examination purposes the Examiner will interpret this new matter in its broadest and most reasonable manner with little to no patentable weight given. Correction and or clarification is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 14-20, 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Independent Claims 1, 14, 21 recite new matter phrase limitations: “extracting; automatically moving; automatically”. There is no recitation of how or what is supporting the ““extracting; automatically moving; automatically”” is accomplished. For examination purposes the Examiner will interpret these indefinite phrase limitations in their broadest and most reasonable manner with little to no patentable weight given. Correction and or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 14-19, and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ruiz et al. (Ruiz) (US 2019/0224556).
With regard to Claims 1, 14, 21, Ruiz teaches a method/system/non-transitory computer readable medium comprising, a processor; and a memory having programming instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by the processor, causes the system to perform operations (computing environment 100) (see at least paragraphs 34-45), comprising:
receiving, by a computing system, a pre-game lineup of a team (agents for a home team) against a target opponent (agents for an away team), wherein the pre-game lineup includes a representation of a first set of players (one or more players; agents) starting a game against the target opponent (The computing system receives a pre-match lineup for the sporting event. The pre-match lineup includes a plurality of agents for a home team and a plurality of agents for an away team) (see at least paragraphs 4, 5);
retrieving, by the computing system, a first set of historical data for the first set of players in the pre-game lineup and team-specific information (The computing system receives a pre-match lineup for the sporting event. The computing system generates, via the predictive model, a likely outcome of the sporting event based on historical information of each agent for the home team, each agent for the away team, and team-specific features), wherein the first set of historical data includes player identity data for the first set of players and player positional data for the first set of players (player identity and positional information (e.g., (x, y) position for all agents and objects on the playing surface for each frame in a game file 110), and wherein the team-specific information includes a team strength metric (team identity, i.e., team strength; metrics) (see at least paragraphs 4, 5, 31, 37, 53-80, 111);
retrieving, by the computing system, a second set of historical data for each player of the target opponent and target opponent-specific information (a likely outcome of the sporting event based on historical information of each agent for the home team, each agent for the away team, and team-specific features; as well as their opponents), wherein the target opponent-specific information includes a opposition strength metric (strengthDiffA, strengthDiffB: league strength difference between the teams and their previous opponents in the subset of most recent matches) (see at least paragraphs 4,5, 26, 58);
utilizing, by the computing system, one or more prediction models to predict a short term match outcome based on the first set of historical data and the second set of historical data (The computing system receives a pre-match lineup for the sporting event. The computing system generates, via the predictive model, a likely outcome of the sporting event based on historical information of each agent for the home team, each agent for the away team, and team-specific features) (see at least paragraphs 4, 5);
displaying, by the computing system, a graphical user interface (GUI) including the representation of the first set of players starting the game, a second player not starting the game, and the predicted short-term match outcome (GUI 500 may include a visual representation of a current starting lineup 501 for a team for a match. As illustrated, GUI 500 may include a visual representation of each agent 502.sub.1-502.sub.11 (generally “agent 502”) in the current starting lineup, as well as a predicted outcome 504 of an upcoming match based on this current starting lineup. Via GUI 500, end users may substitute an agent in the current starting lineup to generate a proposed starting lineup. For example, as illustrated, an end user may replace agent 502.sub.1 with a new agent 506) (see at least paragraphs 123-127);
receiving, via the GUI, a user selection to display an updated predicted short-term match outcome based on replacing a player from the first set of players with the second player (When user replaces agent 502.sub.1 with new agent 506, match prediction agent 120 may generate a new predicted outcome based on an adjusted starting lineup 551. For example, match prediction agent 120 may parse the received input and may generate a new pre-match outcome prediction 554 based on the adjusted started lineup. Accordingly, interface agent 156 may generate an updated GUI 530 that reflects the adjusted starting lineup with an updated predicted outcome) (see at least paragraphs 123-127);
extracting current game context from a game file, wherein the current game context includes two-dimensional player positional information, for a plurality of frames, generated by a tracking system (Tracking system 102 may be positioned in a venue 106. For example, venue 106 may be configured to host a sporting event that includes one or more agents 112. Tracking system 102 may be configured to record the motions of all agents (i.e., players) on the playing surface, as well as one or more other objects of relevance (e.g., ball, referees, etc.). In some embodiments, tracking system 102 may be an optically-based system using, for example, a plurality of fixed cameras. For example, a system of six stationary, calibrated cameras, which project the three-dimensional locations of players and the ball onto a two-dimensional overhead view of the court may be used. In some embodiments, tracking system 102 may be a radio-based system using, for example, radio frequency identification (RFID) tags worn by players or embedded in objects to be tracked. Generally, tracking system 102 may be configured to sample and record, at a high frame rate (e.g., 25 Hz). Tracking system 102 may be configured to store at least player identity and positional information (e.g., (x, y) position) for all agents and objects on the playing surface for each frame in a game file 110) (see at least paragraph 37);
determining, by the computing system, via the one or more prediction models, the updated predicted short-term match outcome based on replacing the player from the first set of players with the second player and the current game context (GUI 500 may include a visual representation of a current starting lineup 501 for a team for a match. As illustrated, GUI 500 may include a visual representation of each agent 502.sub.1-502.sub.11 (generally “agent 502”) in the current starting lineup, as well as a predicted outcome 504 of an upcoming match based on this current starting lineup. Via GUI 500, end users may substitute an agent in the current starting lineup to generate a proposed starting lineup. For example, as illustrated, an end user may replace agent 502.sub.1 with a new agent 506; FIG. 5B is a block diagram illustrating a graphical user interface (GUI) 550, according to example embodiments. GUI 550 may be generated by interface module 206 after a use substitutes an agent 502 in FIG. 5A with a new agent. In some embodiments, GUI 550 may be made available to one or more end users through application 126. In some embodiments, match prediction agent 120 may transmit GUI 550 to one or more client devices 106, via application 126, such that each client device 106 may render and display GUI 550) (see at least paragraphs 123-127);
and automatically moving, by the computing system, a representation of the second player to a respective in-game lineup position in the GUI and further automatically updating the GUI to replace the predicted short-term match outcome with the updated predicted short-term match outcome (GUI 500 may include a visual representation of a current starting lineup 501 for a team for a match. As illustrated, GUI 500 may include a visual representation of each agent 502.sub.1-502.sub.11 (generally “agent 502”) in the current starting lineup, as well as a predicted outcome 504 of an upcoming match based on this current starting lineup. Via GUI 500, end users may substitute an agent in the current starting lineup to generate a proposed starting lineup. For example, as illustrated, an end user may replace agent 502.sub.1 with a new agent 506; FIG. 5B is a block diagram illustrating a graphical user interface (GUI) 550, according to example embodiments. GUI 550 may be generated by interface module 206 after a use substitutes an agent 502 in FIG. 5A with a new agent. In some embodiments, GUI 550 may be made available to one or more end users through application 126. In some embodiments, match prediction agent 120 may transmit GUI 550 to one or more client devices 106, via application 126, such that each client device 106 may render and display GUI 550) (see at least paragraphs 123-130, 157-159);
With regard to Claims 2, 15, 22, Ruiz teaches:
receiving, by the computing system, a trade proposal, wherein the trade proposal comprises adding a target player to the team (see at least paragraphs 124-132);
retrieving, by the computing system, a third set of historical data for the target player (see at least paragraphs 4, 5, 124-132);
injecting, by the computing system, the target player in the pre-game lineup (see at least paragraphs 124-132);
predicting, by the computing system, an updated outcome for the game based on the first set of historical data, the second set of historical data, and the third set of historical data (see at least paragraphs 4, 5, 124-135);
projecting, by the computing system, an updated player season performance and an updated team season performance by simulated the team performance and the player performance (see at least paragraphs 26-28, 54, 124-135).
With regard to Claims 3, 16, 23, Ruiz teaches:
generating, by the computing system, an updated graphical representation corresponding to the updated player season performance and the updated team season performance (see at least paragraphs 4, 5, 81-84, 124-130).
With regard to Claims 4, 17, 24, Ruiz teaches:
generating, by the computing system, the team strength metric for the team using a first neural network (see at least paragraphs 31, 53-59);
generating, by the computing system, a second team strength metric for the target opponent using a second neural network (see at least paragraphs 31, 53-62).
With regard to Claims 5, 18, 25, Ruiz teaches:
generating, by the computing system, role information for each player in the pre-game lineup, using a third neural network, based on the first set of historical data (see at least paragraphs 31, 53-62).
With regard to Claims 6, 19, 26, Ruiz teaches:
identifying, by the computing system, recent performance data of the team, a second set of recent performance data of the target opponent, and third set of recent performance data of each player of the team and each player of the target opponent (see at least paragraphs 31, 53-80).
With regard to Claims 27, 28, Ruiz teaches:
generating, by the computing system, a player recommendation based on the simulated team performance and the simulated player performance (see at least paragraphs 25-33);
displaying, by the computing system, the player recommendation on the user device (see at least paragraphs 25-33, 45).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Burgess et al. (WO 2019/157517 A1)
Friedlander et al. (US 2013/0218619)
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS L MANSFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-1904. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs, alt. Fri. (9-6).
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
THOMAS L. MANSFIELD
Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/THOMAS L MANSFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624