DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
The following Office Action is in response to amendments filed on 02/17/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 1-20 have been rejected as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 is 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. Claim 1 recites: “creating, based on a plurality of outputs received from an impact sensing system of a first object, a first team comprising a plurality of players”. However, nowhere in the original specification, support has been provided regarding “creating a team”. The original specification, ¶ [0318]-[0319], describes that the system can learn the teams, for instance, prior to start of the game, the ball may be simply passed around to each member of a team, signaling their status as teammates, this example system and method can then use the “passed around” players as one team, and any other players the ball comes in proximity to can be assumed to be on the opposing team. Similarly a controlled behavior can be used to signal the “transition” from passing around between players on team #1 to passing the ball around between the players of team #2 and in this manner the ball can positively identify the various members of each team (See ¶ [0320] of the original specification). Another method to determine teammates can be based on passing frequency between players (players that pass the ball to each other more frequently are considered teammates) (see ¶ [0321]-[0322] of the original specification). In all of these paragraphs, it appears that the teams have already been created and these methods are used for a computer system to recognize/identify which players are on the same team (teammates). Further clarification, appropriate corrections and specific citations within the original specification where support regarding “creating, based on a plurality of outputs received from an impact sensing system of a first object, a first team comprising a plurality of players”, have been provided, are respectfully requested. Claims 2-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, by virtue of dependency upon claim 1.
Claim 8 is 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. Claim 8 recites: “one or more processors to: create, based on a plurality of outputs received from an impact sensing system of a first object, a first team comprising a plurality of players”. However, nowhere in the original specification, support has been provided regarding causing the one or more processors to “create a team”. The original specification, ¶ [0318]-[0319], describes that the system can learn the teams, for instance, prior to start of the game, the ball may be simply passed around to each member of a team, signaling their status as teammates, this example system and method can then use the “passed around” players as one team, and any other players the ball comes in proximity to can be assumed to be on the opposing team. Similarly a controlled behavior can be used to signal the “transition” from passing around between players on team #1 to passing the ball around between the players of team #2 and in this manner the ball can positively identify the various members of each team (See ¶ [0320] of the original specification). Another method to determine teammates can be based on passing frequency between players (players that pass the ball to each other more frequently are considered teammates) (see ¶ [0321]-[0322] of the original specification). In all of these paragraphs, it appears that the teams have already been created and these methods are used for a computer system to recognize/identify which players are on the same team (teammates). Further clarification, appropriate corrections and specific citations within the original specification where support regarding “one or more processors to: create, based on a plurality of outputs received from an impact sensing system of a first object, a first team comprising a plurality of players”, have been provided, are respectfully requested. Claims 9-14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, by virtue of dependency upon claim 8.
Claim 15 is 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. Claim 8 recites: “a computing device configured to: create, based on a plurality of outputs received from an impact sensing system of a first object, a first team comprising a plurality of players”. However, nowhere in the original specification, support has been provided regarding a computer device configured to “create a team”. The original specification, ¶ [0318]-[0319], describes that the system can learn the teams, for instance, prior to start of the game, the ball may be simply passed around to each member of a team, signaling their status as teammates, this example system and method can then use the “passed around” players as one team, and any other players the ball comes in proximity to can be assumed to be on the opposing team. Similarly a controlled behavior can be used to signal the “transition” from passing around between players on team #1 to passing the ball around between the players of team #2 and in this manner the ball can positively identify the various members of each team (See ¶ [0320] of the original specification). Another method to determine teammates can be based on passing frequency between players (players that pass the ball to each other more frequently are considered teammates) (see ¶ [0321]-[0322] of the original specification). In all of these paragraphs, it appears that the teams have already been created and these methods are used for a computer system to recognize/identify which players are on the same team (teammates). Further clarification, appropriate corrections and specific citations within the original specification where support regarding “a computing device configured to: create, based on a plurality of outputs received from an impact sensing system of a first object, a first team comprising a plurality of players”, have been provided, are respectfully requested. Claims 16-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, by virtue of dependency upon claim 15.
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.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of claims 1-20 recites at least one step or instruction for observation, evaluation and/or judgement of activity contextual performance information and applying mathematical formulas/calculations to such activity contextual performance information to obtain activity metrics, which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG and a mathematical concept under 2019 PEG.
A detailed evaluation of each claim has been shown below. Please note that the underlined portions show the abstract idea, the bolded portions show additional elements, and the italicized statement within the parenthesis clarify the specific abstract idea of the specific limitation.
Specifically, the claims recite:
1. (Currently Amended) A method comprising:
creating, based on a plurality of outputs received from an impact sensing system of a first object, a first team comprising a plurality of players, wherein each output of the plurality of outputs correspond to a different player of the plurality of players and wherein the impact sensing system comprises one or more sensors (i.e., visually observing and mentally recognizing and assigning the players passing around an object/ball/puck as players of a first team and writing with a pen on a paper the name or jersey numbers of those players under the first team; involves observation, evaluation and judgement, which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG);
determining, by one or more computing devices and based on a shape of a signal output from a first sensor, a first type of activity performed by a first player (i.e. visually observing and mentally recognizing the type of activity a player is performing; (note that a shape of a signal output (from a first sensor) can also be visually observed and mentally recognized); involves observation and judgement, which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG);
transmitting, by the one or more computing devices and based on the first type of activity, contextual performance information to an on-body receiver comprising one or more body-mounted activity sensors, wherein the contextual performance information comprises proximity information between the first player and a first object and possession information between the first player and the first object (i.e. by mentally noting, or verbally communicating or manually writing on a piece of paper, proximity and possession information of a first player to a game object (ball, puck, etc.); involves observation and evaluation, which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG);
receiving, from the on-body receiver, an indication of one or more data processing algorithms for determining a plurality of performance metrics for the first player, wherein the one or more data processing algorithms are selected based on the contextual performance information comprising possession information between the first player and the first object (i.e. mentally selecting an mathematical formulas, etc., and performing calculations to determine various activity metrics; involves evaluation and judgement, which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG and involves mathematical formulas/calculations, which are grouped as mathematical concepts under 2019 PEG); and
outputting, for display on a graphical user interface, performance data determined using the one or more data processing algorithms (i.e., writing on a piece of paper by a pen or using different hand gestures, the result of the calculations; involves judgement and opinion, which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG).
2. (Original) The method according to claim 1, wherein the on-body receiver further comprises a wrist worn device.
3. (Previously Presented) The method according to claim 2, further comprising:
determining, based on athletic activity data obtained from the on-body receiver, a first set of athletic performance metrics; and adjusting an accuracy of the plurality of performance metrics based on the first set of athletic performance metrics (i.e. mentally calculating various metrics and performing various calculations to obtain more accurate results; involves evaluation, which is grouped as a mental processes under 2019 PEG and involves mathematical calculations, which is grouped as a mathematical concept under 2019 PEG).
4. (Original) The method according to claim 3, further comprising: calibrating the one or more body-mounted activity sensors based on the athletic activity data collected by the one or more computing devices (i.e. by having two or more people, observe various data and comparing their data; involves observation, evaluation and judgement, which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG).
5. (Original) The method according to claim 3, wherein the athletic activity data comprises movement data (i.e. visually observing movement of a player; involves observation, which is grouped as a mental process under 2019 PEG).
6. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, wherein the contextual performance information further comprises a direction of movement (i.e. visually observing direction of movement of a player or game object; involves observation, which is grouped as a mental process under 2019 PEG).
7. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of performance metrics further comprise speed and distance (i.e. mentally calculating speed and distance, using various formulas; involves mathematical formulas and calculations, which are grouped as mathematical concepts under 2019 PEG).
8. (Currently Amended) An apparatus comprising:
one or more processors;
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
create, based on a plurality of outputs received from an impact sensing system of a first object, a first team comprising a plurality of players, wherein each output of the plurality of outputs correspond to a different player of the plurality of players and wherein the impact sensing system comprises one or more sensors (i.e., visually observing and mentally recognizing and assigning players passing around an object/ball/puck as players of a first team and writing with a pen on a paper the name or jersey numbers of those players under the first team; involves observation, evaluation and judgement, which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG);
determine, based on a shape of a signal output from a first sensor, a first type of activity performed by a first player (i.e. visually observing and mentally recognizing the type of activity a player is performing; (note that a shape of a signal output (from a first sensor) can also be visually observed and mentally recognized); involves observation and judgement, which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG);
transmit, based on the first type of activity, contextual performance information to an on-body receiver comprising one or more body-mounted activity sensors, wherein the contextual performance information comprises proximity information between the first player and a first object and possession information between the first player and the first object (i.e. by mentally noting, or verbally communicating or manually writing on a piece of paper, proximity and possession information of a first player to a game object (ball, puck, etc.); involves observation and evaluation, which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG);
receive, from the on-body receiver, an indication of one or more data processing algorithms for determining a plurality of performance metrics for the first player, wherein the one or more data processing algorithms are selected based on the contextual performance information comprising possession information between the first player and the first object (i.e. mentally selecting an mathematical formulas, etc., and performing calculations to determine various activity metrics; involves evaluation and judgement, which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG and involves mathematical formulas/calculations, which are grouped as mathematical concepts under 2019 PEG); and
output, for display on a graphical user interface, performance data determined using the one or more data processing algorithms (i.e., writing on a piece of paper by a pen or using different hand gestures, the result of the calculations; involves judgement and opinion, which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG).
9. (Original) The apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the on-body receiver further comprises a wrist worn device.
10. (Previously Presented) The apparatus according to claim 9, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
determine, based on athletic activity data obtained from the on-body receiver, a first set of athletic performance metrics; and adjust an accuracy of the plurality of performance metrics based on the first set of athletic performance metrics (i.e. mentally calculating various metrics and performing various calculations to obtain more accurate results; involves evaluation, which is grouped as a mental processes under 2019 PEG and involves mathematical calculations, which is grouped as a mathematical concept under 2019 PEG).
11. (Previously Presented) The apparatus according to claim 10, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: calibrate the one or more body-mounted activity sensors based on the athletic activity data (i.e. by having two or more people, observe various data and comparing their data; involves observation, evaluation and judgement, which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG).
12. (Original) The apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the athletic activity data comprises movement data (i.e. visually observing movement of a player; involves observation, which is grouped as a mental process under 2019 PEG).
13. (Previously Presented) The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the contextual performance information further comprises a direction of movement (i.e. visually observing direction of movement of a player or game object; involves observation, which is grouped as a mental process under 2019 PEG).
14. (Previously Presented) The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the plurality of performance metrics further comprise speed and distance (i.e. mentally calculating speed and distance, using various formulas; involves mathematical formulas and calculations, which are grouped as mathematical concepts under 2019 PEG).
15. (Currently Amended) A system comprising:
an on-body receiver comprising one or more body-mounted activity sensors;
a computing device configured to:
create, based on a plurality of outputs received from an impact sensing system of a first object, a first team comprising a plurality of players, wherein each output of the plurality of outputs correspond to a different player of the plurality of players and wherein the impact sensing system comprises one or more sensors (i.e., visually observing and mentally recognizing and assigning players passing around an object/ball/puck as players of a first team and writing with a pen on a paper the name or jersey numbers of those players under the first team; involves observation, evaluation and judgement, which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG);
determine, and based on a shape of a signal output from a fist sensor, a first type of activity performed by a first player (i.e. visually observing and mentally recognizing the type of activity a player is performing; (note that a shape of a signal output (from a first sensor) can also be visually observed and mentally recognized); involves observation and judgement, which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG);
transmit, based on the first type of activity, contextual performance information to the on-body receiver, wherein the contextual performance information comprises proximity information between the first player and a first object and possession information between the first player and the first object (i.e. by mentally noting, or verbally communicating or manually writing on a piece of paper, proximity and possession information of a first player to a game object (ball, puck, etc.); involves observation and evaluation, which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG);
receive, from the on-body receiver, an indication of one or more data processing algorithms for determining a plurality of performance metrics for the first player, wherein the one or more data processing algorithms are selected based on the contextual performance information comprising possession information between the first player and the first object (i.e. mentally selecting an mathematical formulas, etc., and performing calculations to determine various activity metrics; involves evaluation and judgement, which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG and involves mathematical formulas/calculations, which are grouped as mathematical concepts under 2019 PEG); and
output, for display on a graphical user interface, performance data determined using the one or more data processing algorithms (i.e., writing on a piece of paper by a pen or using different hand gestures, the result of the calculations; involves judgement and opinion, which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG).
16. (Original) The system according to claim 15, wherein the on-body receiver further comprises a wrist worn device.
17. (Previously Presented) The system according to claim 16, the computing device configured to:
determine, based on athletic activity data obtained from the on-body receiver, a first set of athletic performance metrics; and adjust an accuracy of the plurality of performance metrics based on the first set of athletic performance metrics (i.e. mentally calculating various metrics and performing various calculations to obtain more accurate results; involves evaluation, which is grouped as a mental processes under 2019 PEG and involves mathematical calculations, which is grouped as a mathematical concept under 2019 PEG).
18. (Previously Presented) The system according to claim 17, the computing device configured to: calibrate the one or more body-mounted activity sensors based on the athletic activity data collected by the computing device (i.e. by having two or more people, observe various data and comparing their data; involves observation, evaluation and judgement, which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG).
19. (Original) The system according to claim 17, wherein the athletic activity data comprises movement data (i.e. visually observing movement of a player; involves observation, which is grouped as a mental process under 2019 PEG).
20. (Previously Presented) The system of claim 15, wherein the contextual performance information further comprises a direction of movement (i.e. visually observing direction of movement of a player or game object; involves observation, which is grouped as a mental process under 2019 PEG).
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Further, dependent Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1, 8 and 15 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1, 8 and 15), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: one or more computing devices, one or more processors, memory storing instructions, an impact sensing system, a first sensor, on body receiver (wrist worn device) comprising one or more body-mounted sensors, and a first object are generically recited computer elements, conventional sensors or objects, in independent claims and their respective dependent claims, which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 8 and 15 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental processes and mathematical concepts) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., one or more computing devices, one or more processors, an on body receiver, as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 8 and 15 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1, 8 and 15 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1-20 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: one or more computing devices, one or more processors, memory storing instructions, an impact sensing system comprising one or more sensors, a first sensor, on body receiver (wrist worn device) comprising one or more body-mounted sensors, and a first object.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components, conventional sensors or object which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks in various exercise areas. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Additionally, in light of Applicant’s specification, ¶ [053]-[058], [130], [137] and [220], the claimed terms one or more computing devices, one or more processors, memory storing instructions, an impact sensing system, a first sensor, on body receiver (wrist worn device) comprising one or more body-mounted sensors, and a first object are reasonably construed as a generic computing devices and conventional sensors. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the one or more computing devices, processors and on-body receiver. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-4, 8-11 and 15-18, amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the method, system and a machine-readable storage medium of Claims 1-20 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental processes and mathematical concepts) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 1-20 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1, 8 and 15 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1-20 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1-20 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, Claims 1-20 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 stating: “Applicant has amended the claims to recite "creating, based on a plurality of outputs received from an impact sensing system of a first object, a first team comprising a plurality of players, wherein each output of the plurality of outputs corresponds to a different player of the plurality of players and wherein the impact sensing system comprises one or more sensors." At least this limitation is neither a "mental processes" nor a "mathematical concept." Accordingly, all the claims satisfy the requirements of § 101”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to mention the following. The amendments recited above, still includes an abstract idea that involves observation, evaluation and judgement, which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG. Claim 1, as currently presented recites:
“creating, based on a plurality of outputs received from an impact sensing system of a first object, a first team comprising a plurality of players, wherein each output of the plurality of outputs correspond to a different player of the plurality of players and wherein the impact sensing system comprises one or more sensors (i.e., visually observing and mentally recognizing and assigning the players passing around an object/ball/puck as players of a first team and writing with a pen on a paper the name or jersey numbers of those players under the first team; involves observation, evaluation and judgement, which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG)”,
the underlined portions above, identify the abstract idea, the bolded portions identify the additional elements, and the statement within the parenthesis identifies the specific category the abstract idea falls into and with respect to mental processes, it provides an explanation of how such limitation can be performed mentally (with or without a pen and paper). The same also applies to claims 8 and 15. Therefore, except for the additional elements, the limitation/step involves observation, evaluation and judgement which can be performed mentally (with or without a pen and paper), and are grouped as mental processes under the 2019 PEG. As such, claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Stirling in view of Aman and Englert and further in view of McNeil failing to teach the currently amended limitations of claim 1 reciting: “creating, based on a plurality of outputs received from an impact sensing system of a first object, a first team comprising a plurality of players, wherein each output of the plurality of outputs corresponds to a different player of the plurality of players…” are found persuasive. As such, none of claims have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 for including the above cited limitations.
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 SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH whose telephone number is (571)270-7403. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 am - 3:00 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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at (571)272- 4966. 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.
/SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights