DETAILED ACTION
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 Status
Claims 1-2, 5-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are pending. Claims 1, 9, and 15 have been amended and claims 3-4, 11, and 17 were previously canceled without prejudice.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative argues that the claims have been amended to include an overall performance score determined based on the compiled data which is directed to an improvement to the operation of a computer (see Remarks, pg. 9-11). Specifically, the Applicant’s representative argues that the limitations directed to an overall performance score by weighting each of the performance attributes to the overall performance score is: i) an improvement to the operation of a computer (see Remarks, pg. 9-10) and ii) the recited recommendation of independent Claim 9 recites instructions for “automatically recommending that the first athlete be played in a different position based on the performed comparison” now mirrors Example 42 from the USPTO Examples because it “does something with the compared data first, then makes a recommendation related to it” and is more sophisticated than Example 42 (see Remarks, pg. 10-11). The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons provided below.
With respect to the first argument, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims recite an improvement to the operation of a computer (see Remarks, pg. 9-10). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims have been found to recite steps and/or instructions for determining an overall performance score based on the compiled data, performing comparisons between the reported performance attribute scores for the player to performance attribute scores of other players, projecting future performance of the player based on the performed comparisons, and recommending that the player be played in a different position recites mental processes. Mental processes including observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions that are capable of being performed in the human mind (e.g., such as by a coach for managing a game that would be used to evaluate players when determining a starting line up) are directed to a grouping of abstract ideas. Moreover, while the claims do recite steps to invoke or use “a device processor”, “a non-transitory computer readable medium” and store information in “a database” when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements these additional elements are found to recite a performance of a desired result of computer functionality by invoking general purpose computer components to perform the ordinary functions. As a result, these additional elements when viewed individually and/or as a whole amount to invoking a computer as a tool, insignificant extra solution activity (e.g., mere data gathering which includes collecting and compiling data), and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). It follows that determining an overall performance score based on the compiled data does not indicate an improvement to functioning of the computer but to the abstract idea itself. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
With respect to second argument, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims as amended recite “automatically recommending that the first athlete be played in a different position based on the performed comparison” that mirrors Example 42 because it “does something with the compared data first, then makes a recommendation related to it” that is more sophisticated that Example 42. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant claims, as discussed above, are directed to an abstract idea such as mental processes because they recite steps to perform an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion about the performance of a player compared to other players similar to the type of mental processes that a coach would take when developing a line up or roster. In contrast to the Applicant’s analysis of Example 42, the claims are not found to mirror the claims of Example 42 but are not directed to recite similar steps such as “storing information, providing remote access over a network, converting updated information that was input by a user in a non-standardized form to a standardized format, and automatically generating a message that as a whole was directed to a specific improvement over prior art system by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user” as was found to integrate the claim in Example 42 into a practical application but to mental processes such as collecting information, analyzing information, and display the analyzed information (see MPEP 2106.04(a) III). For at least these reasons, the claimed subject matter of the instant application is not found to mirror or be more “sophisticated” than Example 42 that would be indicative of integration into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2. For at least these reasons, the analysis under 35 USC 101 has been maintained below.
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 1-2, 4-10, 12-16, and 18-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, recite limitations directed to a grouping of abstract idea such as: “performing comparisons between the reported performance attribute scores for the player to performance attributes scores of other players” – mental process; “determining an overall performance score based on the compiled data;” – mental process; “wherein the performance scores are weighted differently based on a contribution of each of the performance attributes to the overall performance score” -mental process; “projecting future performance of the player based on the performed comparisons” -mental process; and “recommending that the player be played in a different position based on the performed comparisons between the player’s performance attribute scores and the performance attribute scores of the other players” – mental process. The claim limitations are found to recite mental processes because they each recite at least one of an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion that are of the type that could be performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III). For example, the claims are found to recite a mental process that is typically performed by a coach when evaluating players to set up a line up or roster of players and a contribution of weighted performance attributes to evaluate the player. For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A-prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations such as: “a device processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium including instructions stored therein, and executable by the processor, for performing the following steps:” “collecting data related to performance of a player into a database;” and “compiling data and reporting performance scores including weighting performance scores of different performance attributes differently in order to address a technological problem presented by a large amount of data;” recite mere instructions or steps to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, perform mere data-gathering and/or extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)) For at least these reasons, the additional limitations are not found to integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2.
The claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements such as: “a device processor”, “a non-transitory computer readable medium” and “a database” when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements recite highly-generalize commercially available components which are invoked as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h)). A review of the Specification indicates the highly-generalized and conventional nature of the claimed computer components known to one of ordinary skill in the art (see Specification, 0006, 0024-0025). For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, the additional elements are not found to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Regarding independent Claims 9 and 15, the claims recite substantially the same subject matter as discussed above with respect to independent Claim 1. The differences in the claim do not change or alter the analysis because independent Claims 9 and 15 recite to “an athlete performance evaluation system” as opposed to “an athlete performance tracking and prediction system” merely recite a difference in a technological environment to perform the abstract idea. Moreover, the claims recite minor changes in the metes and bounds by reciting “a second athlete” as opposed to “other athletes” as in Claim 1 which does not change or alter the analysis. Additionally, claim 9 recites “automatically recommending” which does not change the analysis as it amounts to mere instructions to apply a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea. It follows, for at least these reasons, independent Claims 9 and 15, For substantially the same reasons, independent Claims 9 and 15 are found to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 2, 4-8, 10, 12-14, 16, and 18-20, the limitations have been reviewed and analyzed and were found to recite further limitations directed to a grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)), invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, the dependent claims are found to be directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more. It follows that claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are found to be directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
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 RYAN HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00-6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/RYAN HSU/EXAMINER, Art Unit 3715
