Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claim
Claims 1-12 have been cancelled.
Claims 13-19 have been added.
Claims 13-19 are currently pending and are rejected as described below.
Response to Amendment/Argument
35 USC § 101
The applicant asserts that the algorithm of the Invention has the ability to analyze the pre-loaded data of each level along with manually loaded or automatically loaded additional data during play to provide information to the user outside the practical capability of the human mind. When used with the algorithm, the Invention provides a range of equity maps that reflect whether either the user-generated playing roster or the algorithm-derived roster aligns with the multiple conditions set by the user for a game. This operation can be performed either prior to a game or in real time during a game. The ability to assess and process data across multiple data sets in real time is properly considered to be a process not practically performed in the human mind. This is directly akin to the decision in SRI Int 'l Inc. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The district court concluded that the claims at SRI are more complex than merely reciting the performance of a known business practice on the Internet and are better understood as being necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to solve a specific problem in the realm of computer networks. Summary Judgment Op., 179 F. Supp. 3d at 353-54 (citing '203 patent col. 1 ll. 37-40; DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). We agree. The claims are directed to using a specific technique—using a plurality of network monitors that each analyze specific types of data on the network and integrating reports from the monitors—to solve a technological problem arising in computer networks: identifying hackers or potential intruders into the network. In contrast, the instant application claims are aimed at steps performed by parents/coaches long before the advent of the IoT and the computer and therefore it is not rooted in computer technology. A human can mentally or with the aid of pen and paper pick a roster and assemble a team based on the available players and other available data in order to ensure equity compliance when assigning each player during the game based on inputted biases. The examiner notes that these limitations also fall within managing human relationships and following rules/instructions. Therefore, the amended claims remain abstract idea under prong I of step 2A in the 2019 PEG.
To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. Further, mere automation of a manual process or claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See MPEP 2106.04(a); MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.05(f); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Allowable Subject Matter
None of the cited art documented by the Examiner, taken individually or in combination, discloses or suggests the features in claim 13 nor could a person skilled in the art easily conceive of such features even in the light of common technical knowledge at the time of filing. Therefore, pending claims 13-19 are distinguished from the prior arts cited by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
At Step 1 the claims fall under one of the four statutory categories. The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
With respect to 2A Prong 1, claim 13 recites “a. uploading a software application to an electronic device capable of inputting and processing data; b. inputting a first data set comprising a list of players and related information into the software application; c. modifying the first data set based on an individual game or series of games and storing the modified first data set as a second data set; d. inputting at least two positive or negative biases for each player on the list of players of the first data set; f. inputting one or more development goals for each player on the list of players of the second data set; g. inputting one or more skill level parameters to be applied to the players of the second data set; h. using an algorithm of the software application to enable communication and data processing between the second data set, the at least two positive or negative biases for each player, the set of rules; the one or more development goals for each player and the one or more skill level parameters to compute assignments for each player consistent with all inputted biases, rules, goals and parameters by randomizing the player list and then quantitatively evaluating each player in light of each other player for selection to a playing position based on said biases, rules, goals and parameters in an iterative and repetitive manner for each player on the player list relative to each other player on the player list until the game plan is optimized based on the inputted biases, rules, goals and parameters for all players; i. obtaining one or more graphic displays of all assignments of all players for a game; j. obtaining one or more equity maps showing compliance with each assignment of each player in each position for each period of game play based on inputted biases, rules, goals and parameters in a quantified manner as identified by the use of the algorithm of the software application for each player relative to all players on the player list in light of all inputted biases, rules, goals and parameters”, and therefore recites an abstract idea.
More specifically, claim 1 is directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” in particular “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” and “Mental Processes” in particular “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), and in the 2019-01-08 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 14-19 further recite abstract idea(s) contained within the independent claims, and do not contribute to significant more or enable practical application. Thus, the dependent claims are rejected under 101 based on the same rationale as the independent claims.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the examiner acknowledges that Claim 13 recites additional elements yet the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order for the judicial exception to be “integrated into a practical application”, an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim “will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 54 (Jan. 7, 2019). The courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application when “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (Jan. 7, 2019); MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In particular, claim 13 recites additional elements underlined and boldened above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B, claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites the additional element described above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, as evidenced by at least ¶6 "The invention ("Invention") is a method of using a software application (the "App") which incorporates a range of input options based on league rules, player-specific information and related elements needed or used by coaches to optimize and streamline the creation of a batting lineup for a game and a fielding roster for each inning of a game. Data are entered into the App or used in the App in different levels. The elements of the App may include, without limitation, (i) a roster featuring all players with the ability to designate players not available for a game, (ii) a display on which to create a batting lineup, (iii) a display on which to create a fielding roster for each inning, (iv) at least one display on which to set at least one positive or negative selection bias for each player for each position of play, (v) a display on which to display player or game statistics, (vi) a display on which to enter player-selected preferences for lineup, hitting order and fielding, (vii) a display for setting inputs and notifications for rule compliance, (viii) displays for setting inputs for player development plans and (ix) displays which provide the user with heat maps and other displays depicting equity and other information concerning selections made for the batting lineup and fielding roster”.
As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements, when recited alone or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). 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.
Claims 14-19 do not disclose additional elements, further narrowing the abstract ideas of the independent claims and thus not practically integrated under prong 2A as part of a practical application or under 2B not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
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 extension fee 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 MATHEUS R STIVALETTI whose telephone number is (571)272-5758. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached on (571)272-7761. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1822.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 03/13/2026