Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that the claims must recite a judicial exception rather than relate to a judicial exception in order to trigger an eligibility issue. Assuming this is true, the claims do recite judicial exceptions. Applicant submits that receiving stroke data and location coordinates is not a recitation of collecting information for processing and making predictions. The assertion is not persuasive. Applicant submits that the alleged mental processes are not because they cannot be practically performed in the human mind. The human mind is able to sort holes into different types, add strokes, make adjustments, calculate probabilities and predict outcomes. The assertion that these cannot be done by the human mind is not persuasive.
Applicant then submits that the claims are “clearly ‘integrated into the practical application’ because the claim reflects “an improvement to the technology for functioning of a computer”. Applicant has not shown how a generic computer is able to run more efficiently, consume less power, produce less heat, make calculations faster, etc. There is no recitation that improves the computer. Applicant’s method merely transfers the calculations that would have otherwise been made in the human mind and is instead having a generic computer make those calculations. While the computer is able to make the calculations faster than a human, the method does not make computer hardware run faster.
Finally, the 101 determinations are not borderline. They are objectively, clearly and overwhelmingly afoul of 101. The new claim amendments do not move the needle.
For these reasons the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method of receiving position coordinates of players and objects, retrieving historical performance statistics of golf players and then organizing the data to come up with a predicted probability of that player’s performance. The claims also contain the method on non-transitory computer readable medium and a system comprising general computer hardware performing the method.
The first step is receiving stroke and position coordinates of players and objects and retrieving historical hole-by-hole data for a plurality of holes for plurality of golf tournaments for a plurality of players. This step is merely observation and information gathering.
The next step is clustering the plurality of holes into a plurality of clusters of hole types. This is merely organizing the gathered information.
The next step is generating a strokes-gained metric for each hole type of the historical hole-by-hole data for each player. This step is merely performing an evaluation of the organized information.
The next step is adjusting the strokes gained metric for each hole type based on a field of strength metric associated with each tournament, the field of strength metric representing a strength of a player field in a target tournament. This step is merely refining the evaluation of the organized information.
The next step is generating a probability of player performance of each player for each hole in the target tournament based at least one the adjusted strokes gained metric, wherein the probability of player performance comprises a probability of each player achieving each possible score for each hole. This step is merely making a judgement made on the evaluated information.
The final steps are generating a projected outcome of the target tournament by simulating player performance using the probability of player performance of each player, then updating projected outcome from the stroke information and coordinates using the computer. This step is merely opining the judgement of the evaluated information.
Claims 2-6 merely refine the individual steps taken.
Claim 8 merely performs the method on a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Claim 15 is merely a generic computer performing the method.
Claims 9-13 and 16-19 are analogous to claims 2-6.
Claims 21-23 merely organize human behavior in a tournament based on comparing data between players.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is not integration or steps taken on any structure beyond a general and generic processor and memory, merely the mental steps of observation, organization, evaluation of data and a judgement based thereon and performed on a computing system. This is insufficient for a “practical application” based on MPEP 2106.05(f). The steps above do not improve the computer’s computational functionality.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not add any additional elements beyond a generic computational system.
Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
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 BRIAN O PETERS whose telephone number is (571)272-2662. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Sat, 12:00pm-10pm EST.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at (571) 272-4463. 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.
/BRIAN O PETERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights