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 .
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/22/25 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-2, 5-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are pending. Claims 1, 5, 9, and 15 have been amended, claims 3, 11, and 17 were previously cancelled. No new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative asserts that rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 should be reconsidered and withdrawn. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 3, 11, and 17 have been previously cancelled are not rejected under 35 USC 101. For at least this reason, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
With respect to claims 1-2, 5-10, 12-16, and 18-20, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 in which the Applicant’s representative request reconsideration of the rejection in light of i) the decision in Enfish and Ex Parte Desjardins et al. and ii) the recited claimed improvement that addresses collection of large amounts of data by implementing a weighting system to provide a solution to that problem (see Remarks, pg. 9-12). The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to Ex Parte Desjardins, the claims are not similar to the case in Enfish which was directed to a novel and particular self-referential database and/or Ex Parte Desjardins which was directed to artificial intelligence and machine learning models. In the instance application, the claims recite a series of mental processes that are similar to an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion that is capable of being performed by the human mind (e.g., recommending that the player be played at a different decision) that is analogous to mental processes that a coach or team manager would conduct to manage a team game. For at least this reason, the rationale of Enfish and/or Ex Parte Desjardins is not found to be analogous to the claimed invention of the instant application and the argument is not persuasive.
With respect to argument that the claims are directed to a technological solution to a technological problem, the Applicant’s representative asserts that independent claims, recite and address, by independent claim 1, “a technological problem presented by a large amount of data”. Similarly, the Applicant’s representative further asserts that, independent Claims 9 and 15, now recites “a technological problem arising from different organizations collecting data regarding similar but slightly different performance metrics” which integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 1. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to independent Claim 1, a review of the cited portions of the Specification, the Examiner finds that the claims recite general statements that recite an idea of a solution as opposed but do not describe how a technological solution to a technological problem is solved and or performed. For instance, the Specification offers a mere observation in data not how the data is managed by a weighting system to improve comparing performance metrics and/or a correlation coefficient is used to improve the large amount of data. The cited portions of the Specification were found to merely recites a general statement that artificial intelligence may be used to improve efficiency by using any known methods and or related field. However, such as general statement fails to provide any further description as to how the inventor solved the problem arising from different organizations collecting data or transforms a model using known methods or models to improve recommendations for player metrics that are buried in an avalanche of data that would amount to disclosing a technological solution to a technological problem.. While the Specification contemplates the idea of a solution that weighted metrics are better than evenly weighted metrics by using correlation coefficients it fails to provide sufficient detail that would indicate that to one of ordinary skill in the art how the inventor intended the claimed improvement to be performed. Moreover, the disclosed general observation does not provide sufficient description as to how a general correlation coefficient formula, which is analogous to a mathematical concept and/or formula, is intended to function to achieve the claimed functionality that transforms the generic mathematical relationship to the claimed specialized function to predict future performance because the Specification fails to provide any detail as to the variables and inputs of the data for the correlation coefficient (see Specification, 0061). For at least these reasons, the recitation in the claims and the cited portions of the Specification, do not appear to modify or disclose an improvement to artificial intelligence, machine learning, and/or the improvement of computer functionality. Rather the claims are found to recite the use of known and conventional techniques to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, perform insignificant extra solution activity and/or provide a technological environment to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). It follows that the claims are not found recite additional limitations that show an improvement to computer functionality and/or integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection 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; “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 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. 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
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