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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09 October 2025 have been fully considered. Examiner thanks applicant for the thorough review of the prior office action as well as the clarifications presented within the arguments and remarks. However, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Response to Arguments regarding rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s key arguments, as best understood and summarized by Examiner, are as follows:
The amended method of claim 1 recites a series of concrete steps, constituting more than an abstract idea, to solve a specific problem in the field of athlete-organization matching. The performance of the aforementioned concrete steps using a model for data analysis executed by a processor would improve the matching process, resulting in a specific, technical solution which overcomes “abstract idea” consideration under Alice/Mayo.
Even if the steps amount to an “abstract idea” under Alice/Mayo, the claim does not preempt all matching methods, but only integrating the particular judicial exception into a practical application.
Respectfully, Examiner disagrees. Examiner’s response to arguments below is a summarized evaluation of subject matter eligibility using the Alice/Mayo test. The full test of subject matter eligibility is below within the new 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection below.
With response to Applicant’s first argument, the amended method of claim 1 still recites an abstract idea. Despite reciting the additional elements of the one or more processors and a model, the method steps themselves all fall under the “mental processes” classification of abstract ideas. Specifically, the following limitations can all be performed as a combination of an observation in the human mind and an evaluation or judgement in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper:
“receiving…data descriptive of an athlete”
“analyzing…attributes of the athlete”
“automatically generating…match in response to the fit level meeting a threshold fit level”
All of the recited additional elements still constitute insignificant extra-solution activity (receiving data via the processor), the use of a computer to perform a claimed mental process (regarding the processor and the model), or the establishment of a generic link between the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (determining a mental fit level or mentally observing attributes of athletes and organizations versus accomplishing this using a computer model). Thus, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained, as specified below.
Response to arguments with respect to prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments filed 09 October 2025 with respect to the prior art rejections of all claims have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments, summarized as best understood, are as follows:
Yates does not teach or suggest the newly amended independent claim limitation of automatically generating a match by computing a fit level and comparing it to a threshold to determine a match.
Yates further does not disclose or suggest the use of saved organizational characteristics in the matching process.
Yates does not specifically disclose or suggest performing video analysis on video data of the athlete while the athlete is playing a sport
Respectfully, Examiner disagrees.
Regarding the first argument, Applicant asserts that Yates’ disclosure amounts to an athlete profile generator and updater without the suggestion of matching based on fit levels and thresholds. However, Yates does disclose both the calculation of fit levels (paras. 0107-0112) and the determination of a match between an athlete based on thresholding (paras. 0107-0112). The disclosure of Yates within these paragraphs falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, wherein the calculated fit levels and thresholds can be reasonably understood by the ordinarily skilled artisan to be the combination of the “best-fit” parameter matching and the “threshold degree” of paras. 0107-0112. Thus, Yates does teach this limitation of the amended claim.
Regarding the second argument, Applicant asserts Yates’ invention does not disclose lor suggest the use of saved organizational characteristics in the matching process. However, Yates does, in fact, disclose both the saving and the application of organizational characteristics within the matching process (paras. 0111 and 0112 and figs 24A-29B, including primarily characteristics about athletes, but also characteristics institutions and institutional characteristics, such as location and whether an institution is affiliated with an athlete). The aforementioned characteristics are used to determine whether an athlete is over- or under-recruited, incentivizing institutions to observe under-recruited athletes. This disclosure of Yates further falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, wherein organizational characteristics, as understood by the ordinarily skilled artisan, could be reasonably expected to include institutional sport, location, and recruits targeted. Thus, Yates also teaches this limitation of the amended claim.
Regarding the final argument, Applicant asserts that Yates does not specifically disclose or suggest performing video analysis on video data of the athlete while the athlete is playing a sport. However, Yates does utilize the collection and analysis of both practice tape and in-game film in order to assess athlete attributes (paras. 0067-0072, 0080-0083, and 0088, wherein situations include practice and gametime and specific drills applicable to game situations include separation, transition, and closing speed). Additionally, Applicant asserts that it would be “impossible to replicate” the method and system of Cai due to the possibility that a player’s face is covered due to protective gear and unscripted actions. However, there are multiple sports which do not require protection gear which obstructs the face. Furthermore, athletes in sports which do require facial protection are not always wearing the facial protection, and their faces may be fully seen and analyzed with the model of Cai on the sidelines in between plays. Additionally, the model of Cai, once trained, would be able to recognize facial motions and features without necessitating re-training. Thus, the combination of Yates and Cai also teaches these limitations of the dependent claims.
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.
35 U.S.C. 101 requires that a claimed invention must fall within one of the four eligible categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) and must not be directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception as interpreted by the courts. MPEP 2106. Three categories of subject matter are found to be judicially recognized exceptions to 35 U.S.C. § 101 (i.e., patent ineligible) (1) laws of nature, (2) physical phenomena, and (3) abstract ideas. MPEP 2106(II). To be patent-eligible, a claim directed to a judicial exception must as whole be integrated into a practical application or directed to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106). Hence, the claim must describe a
process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without integration into a practical application or recitation of significantly more.
In the analysis below, the method of independent claim 1 is considered representative of independent claims 1, 19, and 20, since all of the independent claims recite identical steps despite being directed to different statutory categories; thus, the claims pass Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test.
Step 2A prong 1 analysis
The independent claims are directed to a method comprising: “receiving, by one or more processors, data descriptive of an athlete; analyzing, by the one or more processors and using a model, the data descriptive of the athlete to determine one or more attributes of the athlete; and generating, by the one or more processors and using the model, a match between the athlete and an organization based on the one or more attributes of the athlete and one or more characteristics of the organization”. The limitations of “receiving…data descriptive of an athlete” can be considered to be an observation in the human mind, since a person can visually observe or mentally recall certain descriptive data (including but not limited to player name, team, jersey number, height, and build), as well as observing statistics (including but not limited to batting averages, field goal percentages, completion percentages, and top speed). The limitations of “analyzing…the data descriptive of the athlete to determine one or more attributes of the athlete” as drafted, is a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (e.g., having observed shot data, a person can determine that a basketball player with a significantly higher three-point field goal percentage than the average can be determined to be a good shooter outside the arc). The limitations of “automatically generating… a match between the athlete and an organization based on the one or more attributes of the athlete and one or more saved characteristics of the organization”, can be considered to be an observation in the human mind, since a person can visually observe both player attributes and organization attributes and generate a match between the player and an organization (e.g., matching an organization with a low three-point percentage with a high-volume, high-efficiency three-point shooter as a result of human observation of statistics and athlete determinants). The limitations of “by determining a fit level…in response to the fit level meeting a threshold fit level” can be considered to be a combination of an observation in the human mind and a mental evaluation (matching up an athlete and an organization based on athlete attributes and organizational characteristics (i.e., location, connection to the athlete) and needs (need for type of athlete, position, height, speed etc.) can all reasonably be performed mentally with the assistance of paper and pen (draft boards); furthermore, a threshold fit level can be seen as the minimum desired or ideal desired traits of the athlete in question).
As such, the analysis under prong one of step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Rephrasing a bit, sports fans, commentators, and other analysts watch sports video more or less constantly. They identify players in the videos for any number of characteristics, and make mental associations of the needs of the team, the potential of the athletes (e.g. star ratings for college football recruits, mock NFL/NBA drafts). They track (sometimes obsessively) the statistical performance of athletes, and also evaluate the off-field character and behavior of athletes. See e.g. https://www.espn.com/nfl/draft06/news/story?id=2407432 (describing the impact of various traits on the desirability of a player to an organization).
Additional elements
Independent claim 1 recites the usage of one or more processors (“receiving, by one or more processors…analyzing, by the one or more processors …generating, by the one or more processors”) and a model (“analyzing…using a model; and generating…and using the model…”).
Step 2A prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The one or more processors present in claim 1 amount to merely using a computer to perform the claimed mental processes. Implementing an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Moreover, the additional elements of the claims do not recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field, the claimed steps are not performed using a particular machine, the claimed steps do not effect a transformation, and the claims do not apply the judicial exception in any meaningful way beyond generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the analysis under prong two of step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility since the additional steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Each of the other additional elements (processors) are generic computer features which perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional and do not amount to more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation, and mere implementation on a generic computer does not add significantly more to the claims. Accordingly, the analysis under step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Dependent claims 2-18 are dependent on independent claim 1 and therefore include all of the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 2 recites wherein the data descriptive of the athlete comprises one or more of statistical averages, statistical totals, advanced statistics, athlete position, athlete sport, athlete size data, academic data, and video data of the athlete. Collection of athlete position, athlete sport, athlete size data, academic data, and video data can all be done through visual observation. In addition, the determination of statistical averages, statistical totals, advanced statistics can be performed using pen and paper by humans. The claim does not recite any additional elements beyond these mental processes.
Claim 3 recites wherein the data descriptive of the athlete comprises the video data of the athlete, and wherein analyzing the data descriptive of the athlete comprises: performing, by the one or more processors, video analysis on the video data to derive the one or more attributes of the athlete. Observation of video data and analysis of athlete attributes can both be done using visual observation (e.g., looking at game or practice film and determining athletes by height, weight, jersey number; or, alternatively, noting a particular athlete’s characteristics).
Claim 4 recites wherein the one or more attributes comprise a performance pattern for the athlete, a performance rhythm for the athlete, a location on a playing surface where the athlete is successful, a location on the playing surface where the athlete is unsuccessful, a body type of the athlete, a playing style for the athlete, speed data for the athlete, agility data for the athlete, and one or more performance metrics for the athlete. Observation of performance patterns, performance rhythms, athlete body type, athlete playing style, and one or more performance metrics can be performed as a human observation, and locations on the playing surface where the athlete is successful or unsuccessful, athlete speed data, and athlete agility data can be determined through the use of pen and paper (e.g., noting down and comparing speed and agility data and drill times, and drawing an athlete heatmap based on success).
Claim 5 recites wherein performing the video analysis comprises, using the model: identifying, by the one or more processors, the athlete in the video data; tracking, by the one or more processors, one or more movements of the athlete in the video data; identifying, by the one or more processors, a situation for the athlete throughout the one or more movements; and determining, by the one or more processors, the one or more attributes of the athlete based on the one or more movements and the situation. Use of a model, at a high-level, constitutes the use of a computer to perform a mental process. Identification of the athlete in the video data, tracking the one or more movements of the athlete in the video data, identifying a situation for the athlete throughout the one or more movements, and determining the one or more attributes of the athlete based on the one or more movements of the athlete and the situation can all be accomplished through human observation (e.g., an observer can determine certain characteristics of a soccer player, such as height, center of gravity, speed, elusiveness, etc. from human observation of the player dribbling (movements) through a crowd of defenders (situation) in a highlight tape).
Claim 6 recites wherein the video data comprises one or more of game footage and practice footage. This constitutes insignificant pre-solution activity, specifically, the selection of a particular data source or data type for manipulation (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 7 recites wherein the organization comprises a sports team, wherein the one or more characteristics of the organization comprise one or more of a play style of the sports team, a projected need at the position played by athlete, a location of the sports team, an academic requirement for the sports team, athletic tendencies for the sports team, one or more attributes for players currently on the sports team, and coaching information, and wherein generating the match between the athlete and the organization comprises: based on the data descriptive of the athlete, the one or more attributes of the athlete, and the one or more characteristics of the organization, determining, by the one or more processors, the fit level between the athlete and the organization. These limitations constitute a mental process, as the determination of a fit level as a result of matching organizational characteristics and athlete characteristics by the disclosed limitations can be accomplished mentally.
Claims 8 and 16 recite comparing, by the one or more processors, the fit level between the athlete and the organization to the threshold fit level; and in response to the fit level between the athlete and the organization meeting the threshold fit level, determining, by the one or more processors, that the athlete and the organization are the match. This constitutes a mental process and a calculation, as the comparison of a fit level determined through a mental process can be compared to a mentally determined threshold in order to determine a match.
Claims 9 and 17 recite wherein the organization comprises a first organization, the method further comprising: based on the data descriptive of the athlete, the one or more attributes of the athlete, and one or more characteristics of each of a plurality of organizations including the first organization, determining, by the one or more processors, the fit level between the athlete and each respective organization of the plurality of organizations; and sorting, by the one or more processors, a list of the plurality of organizations by the fit level for each respective organization. Determination of a per-organization fit level is a mental process which can be accomplished through reasoning, and the sorting process of the organizations based on fit level can be accomplished using pen and paper.
Claims 10 recites the method of claim 9, further comprising determining, by the one or more processors, the match between the athlete and the first organization as the first organization having a highest fit level. This step is a mental process, and can be accomplished using a pen and paper to make the match list, and selecting the highest match score at the top of the list.
Claim 11 recites wherein the athlete comprises a first athlete, the method further comprising: receiving, by the one or more processors, an indication of user input from a user associated with the organization to search a plurality of athletes, including the first athlete, to match with at least one of the plurality of athletes. Searching a plurality of athletes, including the first athlete, to match with at least one of the plurality of athletes, can be accomplished through verbal communication or the creation of a list, such as in a draft or mock draft at the professional level.
Claim 12 recites wherein the data descriptive of the athlete comprises a personality test, and wherein analyzing the data descriptive of the athlete comprises: evaluating, by the one or more processors, at least responses to the personality test, by the athlete, to determine the one or more attributes of the athlete, wherein the one or more attributes comprise one or more personality attributes of the athlete. The administration of the personality test can be accomplished through human verbal communication, and the evaluation of the answers can be performed by mental process (e.g., an organization coach, physician, psychiatrist, etc.)
Claim 13 recites determining the one or more personality attributes further comprises: performing, by the one or more processors, video analysis on the video data of the athlete playing a sport; and determining, by the one or more processors, the one or more personality attributes of the athlete based on the responses to the personality test and the video analysis of the video data of the athlete. Determining personality attributes through video analysis and video data can be measured through human mental evaluation of the video data (e.g., showing video data to a person associated with the organization for observation of responses, body language, etc.).
Claim 14 recites wherein the video data shows whether the athlete does one or more of exhibit good sportsmanship, exhibit bad sportsmanship, perform excessive fouls, and perform excessive celebrations, and wherein the one or more personality attributes of the athlete comprise one or more of personal ethics, personal morals, charisma, fashion, and play style. Determination of these attributes from video data can be accomplished through human observation and mental evaluation (communication, body language, and choice of clothing, among other factors).
Claim 15 recites wherein the organization comprises a company, wherein the one or more characteristics of the organization comprise one or more of a company culture, a company environment, company morals, typical consumer, product type, marketing needs, and marketing budget, and wherein generating the match between the athlete and the organization comprises: based on the data descriptive of the athlete, the one or more attributes of the athlete, and the one or more characteristics of the organization, determining, by the one or more processors, the fit level between the athlete and the organization. These limitations constitute a mental process, as the determination of a fit level as a result of matching organizational characteristics and athlete characteristics by the disclosed limitations can be accomplished mentally.
Claim 18 recites wherein the organization comprises a first organization, the method further comprising: receiving, by the one or more processors, an indication of user input from the athlete to search a plurality of organizations, including the first organization, to match with at least one of the plurality of organizations. Searching a plurality of organizations, including the first organization, to match with at least one of the plurality of organizations, can be accomplished through verbal communication or the creation of a list.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12, 14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yates et al. (US PG Pub 20210275059 A1, hereafter referred to as Yates)
Regarding claim 1, Yates discloses a method comprising receiving, by one or more processors, data descriptive of an athlete (paras. 0063, 0069-0072, wherein the data descriptive of an athlete is a video showing the athlete within the context of an athletic performance or activity, collected within memory and processed using the one or more processors); analyzing, by the one or more processors and using a model, the data descriptive of the athlete to determine one or more attributes of the athlete (paras. 0070-0075, wherein the one or more processors are used in conjunction with the computer vision system for locating and processing video data, the athlete is tracked throughout the video using a tag or box for identification, and performance data such as maximum speed or maximum acceleration); and automatically generating, by the one or more processors and using the model, a match between the athlete and an organization based on the one or more attributes of the athlete and one or more saved characteristics of the organization (para 0107-0112, wherein the match is generated using athlete performance data, queries for recruitment including classification, grades, and thresholds, and inquiring organizations can sort based on different metrics); by determining a fit level between the athlete and the organization based on the one or more attributes of the athlete and one or more characteristics of the organization, and determining that the athlete and the organization are the match in response to the fit level meeting a threshold fit level (paras. 0107-0112, wherein the calculated fit levels and thresholds would be reasonably understood by the ordinarily skilled artisan to be the combination of the “best-fit” parameter matching and the “threshold degree” of paras. 0107-0112; paras. 0111 and 0112 and figs 24A-29B, including primarily characteristics about athletes, but also characteristics institutions and institutional characteristics, such as location and whether an institution is affiliated with an athlete; and paras 0067-0072 and 0080-0088 for the actual characteristics).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected, mutatis mutandis, for reasons similar to claim 1. Yates also discloses:
the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19 (para. 0007 and 0062-0064) having stored thereon instructions (para. 0064) that, when executed, cause one or more processors of a computing device to execute the method of claim 1.
the computing device of claim 20 (paras. 0059-0060) comprising: a memory component (paras. 0007 and 0062-0064); and one or more processors (para. 0063, element 3) configured to receive data descriptive of an athlete (paras. 0063, 0069-0072, wherein the data descriptive of an athlete is a video showing the athlete within the context of an athletic performance or activity, collected within memory and processed using the one or more processors)
Regarding claim 2, Yates discloses all limitations of claim 1. Yates further discloses wherein the data descriptive of the athlete comprises one or more of statistical averages, statistical totals, advanced statistics, athlete position, athlete sport, athlete size data, academic data, and video data of the athlete (paras. 0063-0075, and 0107-0109, wherein the data includes video data of the athlete performing tasks or drills to obtain speed and acceleration data, and other data includes height, weight, position, location, enrollment, SAT scores, and GPA, among other elements).
Regarding claim 3, Yates discloses all limitations of claim 2. Yates further discloses wherein the data descriptive of the athlete comprises the video data of the athlete (paras. 0069-0072, containing the description of the full video data input and processing pipeline), and wherein analyzing the data descriptive of the athlete comprises: performing, by the one or more processors, video analysis on the video data to derive the one or more attributes of the athlete (paras. 0070-0072, wherein the processors perform a frame-by-frame object tracking model to determine attributes of the athlete from analyzing pixel distances and transforming them into real-world metrics).
Regarding claim 4, Yates discloses all limitations of claim 3. Yates further discloses wherein the one or more attributes comprise a body type of the athlete, speed data for the athlete, and one or more performance metrics for the athlete (paras. 0067-0087 and 0109-0110, wherein the metrics include maximum speed, maximum acceleration, separation distance, transition time, and closing speed, and body type measurements include height and weight).
Regarding claim 5, Yates discloses all limitations of claim 3. Yates further discloses wherein performing the video analysis comprises, using the model: identifying, by the one or more processors, the athlete in the video data (para. 0071, specifically the tag, box, or designator which is used to label the athlete within the film); tracking, by the one or more processors, one or more movements of the athlete in the video data (para. 0072, wherein the athlete’s motion with respect to reference elements is tracked, calibrated, transformed, and converted); identifying, by the one or more processors, a situation for the athlete throughout the one or more movements (paras. 0067-0072, 0080-0083, and 0088, wherein situations include both gametime and practice, and specific drills applicable to game situations include separation, transition, and closing speed, which are discussed within different embodiments of tracking); and determining, by the one or more processors, the one or more attributes of the athlete based on the one or more movements and the situation (paras. 0080-0083 and 0088, wherein components determined based on movements and situations include transition time, closing speed, and average separation distance).
Regarding claim 6, Yates discloses all limitations of claim 2. Yates further discloses wherein the video data comprises one or more of game footage and practice footage (para. 0067, wherein either or both game and practice footage may be used for video data analysis).
Regarding claim 7, Yates discloses all limitations of claim 2. Yates further discloses wherein the organization comprises a sports team (para. 0111), wherein one characteristic of the organization comprises a projected need at the position played by athlete (para. 0067, wherein the pool of athletes best suited for a position, team, sport, or organization are determined by the method for strategic recommendation), and wherein generating the match between the athlete and the organization comprises: based on the data descriptive of the athlete, the one or more attributes of the athlete, and the one or more characteristics of the organization, determining, by the one or more processors, the fit level between the athlete and the organization (paras. 0107-0111, wherein the best-fit match is determined based on selected parameters (including but not limited to classification, sport, athleticism, and statistics).
Regarding claim 8, Yates discloses all limitations of claim 7. Yates further discloses comparing, by the one or more processors, the fit level between the athlete and the organization to a threshold fit level (para. 0107, wherein an embodiment of Yates’ matching system includes a threshold for minimum matching between the organization and the athlete as a part of the best-fit determination); and in response to the fit level between the athlete and the organization meeting the threshold fit level, determining, by the one or more processors, that the athlete and the organization are the match (para. 0107, wherein the threshold value being surpassed indicates a match and adds the athlete to the match list).
Regarding claim 9, Yates discloses all limitations of claim 7. Yates further discloses wherein the organization comprises a first organization, the method further comprising: based on the data descriptive of the athlete, the one or more attributes of the athlete, and one or more characteristics of each of a plurality of organizations including the first organization (paras. 0111-0112 and figs 24A-29B, wherein the disclosure notes that athlete profile details will be published and presented to organizations), determining, by the one or more processors, the fit level between the athlete and each respective organization of the plurality of organizations (para. 0109, wherein the match level per organization is modifiable based on organization-specific parameters); and sorting, by the one or more processors, a list of the plurality of organizations by the fit level for each respective organization (paras. 0107-0111).
Regarding claim 10, Yates discloses all limitations of claim 9. Yates further discloses wherein the method of claim 9 further comprises determining, by the one or more processors, the match between the athlete and the first organization as the first organization having a highest fit level (para. 0109, wherein the organization and athlete having the highest fit would be at the top of the best-fit list).
Regarding claim 11, Yates discloses all limitations of claim 1. Yates further discloses wherein the athlete comprises a first athlete, the method further comprising: receiving, by the one or more processors, an indication of user input from a user associated with the organization to search a plurality of athletes, including the first athlete, to match with at least one of the plurality of athletes (paras. 0059 and 0107-0111, wherein the plurality of athletes have published profiles with descriptive data and characteristics, and wherein agents of an organization can search a plurality of players using specific criteria or measurables to find a player of best fit).
Regarding claim 12, Yates discloses all limitations of claim 11. Yates further discloses wherein the data descriptive of the athlete comprises a personality test, and wherein analyzing the data descriptive of the athlete comprises: evaluating, by the one or more processors, at least responses to the personality test, by the athlete, to determine the one or more attributes of the athlete, wherein the one or more attributes comprise one or more personality attributes of the athlete (para. 0112, wherein the athlete profile further contains personality and temperament information, wherein the personality aspect is received from a variety of objective and subjective sources, and rankings for player character are also included).
Regarding claim 14, Yates discloses all limitations of claim 12. Yates further discloses wherein the video data shows whether the athlete does one or more of exhibit good sportsmanship, exhibit bad sportsmanship, perform excessive fouls, and perform excessive celebrations, and wherein one or more personality attributes of the athlete comprises personal ethics and morals (para. 0112, wherein intangibles of the athlete include athlete attributes such as “coachability, extrover[sion], introver[sion]”, known indicators and expressions of sportsmanship and character which the ordinary skilled artisan would understand and be able to apply; and values “such as tradition, stimulation, achievement, helping others, and taking pleasure in life”).
Regarding claim 18, Yates discloses all limitations of claim 1. Yates further discloses wherein the organization comprises a first organization, the method further comprising: receiving, by the one or more processors, an indication of user input from the athlete to search a plurality of organization, including the first organization, to match with at least one of the plurality of organizations (paras. 0059 and 0107-0111, wherein the plurality of athletes have published profiles with descriptive data and characteristics, and wherein agents of an organization can search a plurality of players using specific criteria or measurables to find a player of best fit).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yates in further view of Cai et al. (“Identifying Big Five Personality Traits based on Facial Behavior Analysis”, hereafter referred to as Cai)
Regarding claim 13, Yates discloses all limitations of claim 12. Yates does not disclose wherein determining the one or more personality attributes further comprises: performing, by the one or more processors, video analysis on the video data of the athlete; and determining, by the one or more processors, the one or more personality attributes of the athlete based on the responses to the personality test and the video analysis of the video data of the athlete.
However, Cai discloses wherein determining the one or more personality attributes further comprises: performing, by the one or more processors, video analysis on video data; and determining, by the one or more processors, one or more personality attributes based on the responses to the personality test and video analysis of the video data (Cai pgs. 1-2, introduction section and 9 conclusion section, wherein the video data was collected and processed, and the personality test and responses used were the Big Five Inventory test, which is well-known to a person having ordinary skill in the art). Specifically, Cai discloses a method to determine big five personality traits based on the analysis of a subject’s facial behavior. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the video analysis of the athlete to determine personality as disclosed by X within the method of Yates as the application of a known technique to a known device to yield the predictable improvement of a more detailed, multifaceted personality assessment of an athlete in order to better match them with an organization.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yates in further view of Penttinen (“Sponsorship of Individual Athletes in Relation to the Company’s Marketing Strategy”, Master’s Thesis, University of Oulu Business School, 2022).
Regarding claim 15, Yates discloses all limitations of claim 11. Yates further discloses wherein generating the match between the athlete and the organization comprises: based on the data descriptive of the athlete, the one or more attributes of the athlete, and the one or more characteristics of the organization, determining, by the one or more processors, a fit level between the athlete and the organization (paras. 0107-0111, wherein the best-fit match is determined based on selected parameters (including but not limited to classification, sport, athleticism, and statistics).
Yates does not disclose wherein the organization comprises a company, wherein the one or more characteristics of the organization comprise one or more of a company culture, a company environment, company morals, typical consumer, product type, marketing needs, and marketing budget.
However, Penttinen discloses wherein the organization comprises a company (page 16, section 2.4, “agreement between a company and an athlete”) and wherein the one or more characteristics of the organization comprise typical consumers, marketing needs, and a marketing budget (pages 19-20, section 2.7, wherein the discussion of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and sport sponsorship extends to typical consumers and a CSR budget being applied to sponsor athletes). Specifically, Penttinen describes the relationship between corporations and professional sports, wherein companies are likely to sponsor individual athletes who align with corporate social standards and values. Therefore, both Yates and Penttinen disclose interested parties in the measurables, personalities, and trajectories of aspiring professional and professional athletes, as well as methodologies for matching the interest for gain. Thus, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the corporations of Penttinen for the sports organizations in the method of Yates as a simple substitution of parties interested in the performance and marketability of athletes with specific skills and personalities and with interest in collaboration.
Regarding claim 16, Yates and Penttinen disclose all limitations of claim 15. Yates further discloses comparing, by the one or more processors, the fit level between the athlete and the organization to a threshold fit level (para. 0107, wherein an embodiment of Yates’ matching system includes a threshold for minimum matching between the organization and the athlete as a part of the best-fit determination); and in response to the fit level between the athlete and the organization meeting the threshold fit level, determining, by the one or more processors, that the athlete and the organization are the match (para. 0107, wherein the threshold value being surpassed indicates a match and adds the athlete to the match list).
Regarding claim 17, Yates and Penttinen disclose all limitations of claim 15. Yates further discloses wherein the organization comprises a first organization, the method further comprising: based on the data descriptive of the athlete, the one or more attributes of the athlete, and one or more characteristics of each of a plurality of organizations including the first organization (paras. 0111-0112 and figs 24A-29B, wherein the disclosure notes that athlete profile details will be published and presented to organizations), determining, by the one or more processors, a fit level between the athlete and each respective organization of the plurality of organizations (para. 0109, wherein the match level per organization is modifiable based on organization-specific parameters); and sorting, by the one or more processors, a list of the plurality of organizations by the fit level for each respective organization (paras. 0107-0111).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ROHAN TEJAS MUKUNDHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2368. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9AM - 6PM.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 5712723838. 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.
/ROHAN TEJAS MUKUNDHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2663
/GREGORY A MORSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698