Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 21 recites computer implemented method, claim 30 recites non-transitory computer readable medium and claim 36 recites a system, thus each are statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: Each claims recites "constructing by the one or more processor, a first vector"; "constructing by the one or more processor, a second vector" ; "constructing by the one or more processor, a third vector" ; "generating by the one or more processor a predicted final score .." .This is a process that under its reasonable interpretation, mathematical concepts. Spec [00107] -[00116] discloses Figures 7A and lineup vector for each game and computes difference distribution.
Step 2A Prong Two: Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites the additional element of a memory and a processor configured to carry out limitations (a) receiving by one or more processor one or more data sets, i.e., they are merely used as a tool and recited generically that they represent not more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). This also amounts to be data gathering. The predicting by one or more processor, one oor more players in one or more matches at one or more time periods based on 1st, 2nd ,3rd vector, is amounts to be extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception. The claim has a combination of elements. The first is a memory and processor, which is configured to perform limitations as constructing. Explained previously, the memory and processor are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The second additional element is a display which as explained previously is extra-solution activity, which for purposes of Step 2A Prong Two was considered insignificant. Thus claims are not eligible.
Regarding method claims 22-29, CRM claims 31-35 and system/apparatus claims 37-40:
Claims 22 and 31 further recite: “determining, by the one or more processors, an optimal set of mixture parameters by reducing a likelihood of finding the optimal set of mixture parameters.”
Step 2A Prong One: This is a process that under its reasonable interpretation, falls within the mental concepts grouping of “abstract ideas” because under the broadest reasonable interpretation, selecting parameters could be accomplished via the human mind/judgement but for the processor limitation.
Step 2A Prong Two: The additional limitation does not integrate the exception into a practical limitation, because, as identified above the additional limitation merely selects additional data for parameters, a data gathering step or judgement step.
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception. The claim has a combination of elements. Explained previously, the memory and processor are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. The claim when considered as a whole does not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technological field. It does not produce a particular machine. It does not effective a transformation of an article to a different state or thing. It does not provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment. The additional elements identified in step 2A prong two are likewise analyzed the same in step 2B as above. The combination elements merely use the computer as a tool without improving the tool itself and thus are patent ineligible.
Claims 23, 26 and 38 further recite: “utilizing, by the one or more processors, the optimal set of mixture parameters to generate a projected score difference between an away team of the one or more matches and a home team of the one or more matches.”
Step 2A prong one: This is a process that under its reasonable interpretation, falls within the mental concepts grouping of “abstract ideas” because under the broadest reasonable interpretation, generating output data based on optimized inputs and could be accomplished via the human mind or judgement but for the processor limitations.
Step 2A prong two: the additional limitation in this claim does not recite a practical application because merely outputting a guess as to final score difference has no practical utility and could be accomplished via human judgment/estimation.
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim when considered as a whole does not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technological field. It does not produce a particular machine. It does not effective a transformation of an article to a different state or thing. It does not provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment. The additional elements identified in step 2A prong two are likewise analyzed the same in step 2B as above. The combination elements merely use the computer as a tool without improving the tool itself and thus are patent ineligible.
Claims 24 and 33 further recite, “wherein the one or more data sets include spatial event data for the one or more matches.”
Step 2A prong one: This is a process that under its reasonable interpretation, falls within the mental concepts grouping of “abstract ideas” because under the broadest reasonable interpretation, recites mere data gathering step.
Step 2A prong two: the additional limitation in this claim does not recite a practical application because merely selecting different data can be accomplished via human judgment but for the processor limitation.
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim when considered as a whole does not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technological field. It does not produce a particular machine. It does not effective a transformation of an article to a different state or thing. It does not provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment. The additional elements identified in step 2A prong two are likewise analyzed the same in step 2B as above. The combination elements merely use the computer as a tool without improving the tool itself and thus are patent ineligible.
Claims 25 and 33 further recites, “wherein constructing the first vector includes parsing the one or more data sets to identify at least one of the one or more data sets directed to the one or more team metrics.”
Step 2A prong one: This is a process that under its reasonable interpretation, falls within the mental concepts grouping of “abstract ideas” because under the broadest reasonable interpretation, recites mere data gathering step by parsing the data to a subset.
Step 2A prong two: the additional limitation in this claim does not recite a practical application because merely selecting different data can be accomplished via human judgment but for the processor limitation.
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim when considered as a whole does not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technological field. It does not produce a particular machine. It does not effective a transformation of an article to a different state or thing. It does not provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment. The additional elements identified in step 2A prong two are likewise analyzed the same in step 2B as above. The combination elements merely use the computer as a tool without improving the tool itself and thus are patent ineligible.
Claims 26 and 35 further recites, “wherein constructing the second vector includes parsing the one or more data sets to identify at least one of the one or more data sets directed to the one or more agent metrics.”
Step 2A prong one: This is a process that under its reasonable interpretation, falls within the mental concepts grouping of “abstract ideas” because under the broadest reasonable interpretation, recites mere data gathering step and selecting a subset of the data via parsing.
Step 2A prong two: the additional limitation in this claim does not recite a practical application because merely selecting different data can be accomplished via human judgment but for the processor limitation.
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim when considered as a whole does not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technological field. It does not produce a particular machine. It does not effective a transformation of an article to a different state or thing. It does not provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment. The additional elements identified in step 2A prong two are likewise analyzed the same in step 2B as above. The combination elements merely use the computer as a tool without improving the tool itself and thus are patent ineligible.
Claims 27 and 38 further recite, “wherein the one or more play-by-play events include a game time event, a ball possession event, or a score difference event.”
Step 2A prong one: This is a process that under its reasonable interpretation, falls within the mental concepts grouping of “abstract ideas” because under the broadest reasonable interpretation, recites mere data gathering step of specific game time data, ball possession or score difference, which could be accomplished via the human mind to form an outcome prediction based on the observed data.
Step 2A prong two: the additional limitation in this claim does not recite a practical application because merely selecting different data can be accomplished via human judgment but for the processor limitation.
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim when considered as a whole does not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technological field. It does not produce a particular machine. It does not effective a transformation of an article to a different state or thing. It does not provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment. The additional elements identified in step 2A prong two are likewise analyzed the same in step 2B as above. The combination elements merely use the computer as a tool without improving the tool itself and thus are patent ineligible.
Claims 28 and 39 further recite, “wherein predicting the one or more players includes training a neural network to predict the one or more players in the one or more matches.”
Step 2A prong one: This is a process that under its reasonable interpretation, falls within the mental concepts grouping of “abstract ideas” because under the broadest reasonable interpretation, configuring a neural network could be accomplished via pen and paper and human observations to make a prediction.
Step 2A prong two: the additional limitation in this claim does not recite a practical application because merely configuring a neural network via training and making a prediction achieves no practical purpose and could be accomplished via human judgement but for the processor and neural network structure.
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim when considered as a whole does not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technological field. It does not produce a particular machine. It does not effective a transformation of an article to a different state or thing. It does not provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment. The additional elements identified in step 2A prong two are likewise analyzed the same in step 2B as above. The combination elements merely use the computer as a tool without improving the tool itself and thus are patent ineligible.
Claims 29 and 40 further recites, “wherein generating the predicted final score includes training a mixture density network to predict the predicted final score.”
Step 2A prong one: This is a process that under its reasonable interpretation, falls within the mental concepts grouping of “abstract ideas” because under the broadest reasonable interpretation, recites mere configuration of a model to make a prediction, which, could be accomplished via human mind/judgement/observation.
Step 2A prong two: the additional limitation in this claim does not recite a practical application because merely configuring a model to make a prediction could be accomplished via pen and paper and the human mind to make a prediction. But for the processor and density network limitation, the prediction could be accomplished via human judgement and observation.
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim when considered as a whole does not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technological field. It does not produce a particular machine. It does not effective a transformation of an article to a different state or thing. It does not provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment. The additional elements identified in step 2A prong two are likewise analyzed the same in step 2B as above. The combination elements merely use the computer as a tool without improving the tool itself and thus are patent ineligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)270-0473. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 1-930PM 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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/GARY COLLINS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights