DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to claims filed 06/03/2024.
Claims 18–37 are pending for examination.
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 Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18, recites —“(ii) data obtained one or more remote sensors” but should recite “(ii) data obtained by one or more remote sensors”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 32 recites “The system of claim 19, wherein the hybridization processor is further configured to iteratively incorporate new stochastic data to generate improved versions of the hybridized function.” However, claim 19 recites “The system of claim 18, wherein the hybridization processor is further configured to iteratively incorporate new stochastic data to generate improved versions of the hybridized function”. Therefore, claim 32 does not further limit claim 19 and is an improper dependent claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Examiner notes that Claims 18–37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting, as indicated below.
Claims 18–37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,521,526 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the claims of the issued patent by being broader than the claims of the issued patent. See the comparison below:
18/609,983
10,521,526 B2 (15/818,319)
Comment (if applicable)
18. a hybridization processor configured to receive and store:
1. a hybridization processor that receives and stores the following inputs
Strikeouts are extra words relevant to the instant applications claims, and underlines are added differences
18. (i) a plurality of deterministic models, each deterministic model characterized by having as input a set of initial conditions of the athletic performance and an output representative of a prediction of said athletic performance
1. (i) a plurality of deterministic models
18. (ii) data obtained one or more remote sensors located on an individual, athletic equipment, or in an athletic environment that measure at least one aspect of the athletic performance of the individual
1. (ii) data produced by one or more sensors located on an individual, athletic equipment, or in an athletic environment measuring at least one aspect of the athletic performance of the individual,
Data obtained by one or more remote sensors is anticipated by data produced by one or more sensors located on an individual.
18. said hybridization processor configured to receive both the plurality of deterministic models and stochastic observational data from the one or more sensors
1. said hybridization processor accept both the plurality of deterministic models and stochastic observational data from the one or more sensors
Note the introduction of the sensors being “remote” which is missing from the previous limitation
18. said hybridization processor configured to hybridize the stored plurality of deterministic models of the athletic performance and the stochastic observational data received from the sensors to produce as its output a hybridized function
1. said hybridization processor configured to hybridize the stored plurality of deterministic models of the athletic performance and the stochastic observational data received from the sensors to produce as its output a hybridized function
18. the hybridized function further configured to generate predictions of the athletic performance of the individual
1. performance of the individual
Although not relevant to this claim, examiner notes the limitations with strikeouts are found in the instant application’s dependent claims below
19. The system of claim 18, wherein the hybridization processor is further configured to iteratively incorporate new stochastic data to generate improved versions of the hybridized function
2. The system of claim 1 wherein the hybridization processor is further configured to iteratively incorporate new stochastic data to generate improved versions of the hybridized function
20. The system of claim 18, wherein the hybridization processor is configured to generate a probability distribution over possible output states, thereby enabling probabilistic predictions of the athletic performance of the individual
wherein the hybridized function generates for any set of initial conditions,
Claim 20 (which depends from claim 18) is anticipated by this corresponding limitation in claim 1
21. The system of claim 18, further comprising: a video enhancement processor configured to provide one or more graphical representations of said predictions of the athletic performance
4. The system of claim 1 or claim 3, further comprising: a video enhancement processor configured to provide one or more graphical representations of said generated probability distribution
Said predictions of the athletic performance is a broader version of said generated probability distribution
22. The system of claim 21, wherein an audible, visible, or haptic output is conveyed to at least one individual during an athletic competition by at least one of a wireless, wired, visual, or acoustic device
5. The system of claim 4, wherein an audible, visible, or haptic output is conveyed to at least one individual during an athletic competition by at least one of a wireless, wired, visual, or acoustic device
23. The system of claim 20, further comprising: an audio enhancement processor configured to generate an audible representation of one or more aspects of the predictions of the athletic performance
6. The system of claim 1 or claim 3, further comprising: an audio enhancement processor configured to generate an audible representation of one or more aspects of the probability distribution
Said predictions of the athletic performance is a broader version of said generated probability distribution
24. The system of claim 23, wherein an audible, visible, or haptic representation of one or more aspects of the predictions of the athletic performance is conveyed to at least one individual during an athletic competition by at least one of a wireless, wired, visual, or acoustic device
7. The system of claim 6, wherein an audible, visible, or haptic representation of one or more aspects of the probability distribution is conveyed to at least one individual during an athletic competition by at least one of a wireless, wired, visual, or acoustic device
Said predictions of the athletic performance is a broader version of said generated probability distribution
25. The system of claim 20, further comprising: a haptic enhancement processor configured to generate a haptic representation of one or more aspects of the predictions of the athletic performance
8. The system of claim 1 or claim 3, further comprising: a haptic enhancement processor configured to generate a haptic representation of one or more aspects of said generated probability distribution
Said predictions of the athletic performance is a broader version of said generated probability distribution
26. The system of claim 25, wherein an audible, visible, or haptic representation of the predictions of the athletic performance is conveyed to at least one individual during an athletic competition by at least one of a wireless, wired, visual, or acoustic device
9. The system of claim 8, wherein an audible, visible, or haptic representation of the probability distribution is conveyed to at least one individual during an athletic competition by at least one of a wireless, wired, visual, or acoustic device.
Said predictions of the athletic performance is a broader version of said generated probability distribution
27. The system of claim 19, wherein the hybridization processor is further configured to store a deterministic model of an athletic performance based upon mathematical equations representative of physical laws of nature
10. The system of claim 2 wherein the hybridization processor is further configured to store a deterministic model of an athletic performance based upon mathematical equations representative of physical laws of nature
28. The system of claim 19, wherein the hybridization processor is further configured to store a deterministic model of an athletic performance based upon mathematical equations derived using principals from biology
11. The system of claim 2 wherein the hybridization processor is further configured to store a deterministic model of an athletic performance based upon mathematical equations derived using principals from biology
29. The system of claim 18, wherein the hybridization processor is configured as: one or more standalone microprocessors; one or more application specific integrated circuits; one or more field programmable gate array; a set of microprocessors, application specific integrated circuits or field programmable gate arrays running concurrently over a local network; or a cloud processing environment wherein data and results are conveyed over a wide area network
12. The system of claims 1, or 2 wherein the hybridization processor is configured as: one or more standalone microprocessors; one or more application specific integrated circuits; one or more field programmable gate array; a set of microprocessors, application specific integrated circuits or field programmable gate arrays running concurrently over a local network; or a cloud processing environment wherein data and results are conveyed over a wide area network
30. The system of claim 20, wherein the probability distribution is represented as at least one of a scatter plot, continuous distribution, histogram, heat map, and color contours
13. The system of claims 1 or 3, wherein the probability distribution is represented as at least one of a scatter plot, continuous distribution, histogram, heat map, and color contours
31. The system of claim 18, wherein the plurality of deterministic models and the stochastic observational data are hybridized using one or more of analog computing, maximum entropy filtering, neural networks, nonlinear regression, and maximum likelihood estimation
14. The system of claim 1 or claim 3, wherein the plurality of deterministic models and the stochastic observational data are hybridized using one or more of analog computing, maximum entropy filtering, neural networks, nonlinear regression, and maximum likelihood estimation
32. The system of claim 19, wherein the hybridization processor is further configured to iteratively incorporate new stochastic data to generate improved versions of the hybridized function
15. The system of claim 3, wherein the hybridization processor is further configured to iteratively incorporate new stochastic data to generate improved versions of the hybridized function
33. The system of claim 20, wherein the hybridization processor is further configured to store a deterministic model of an athletic performance based upon mathematical equations representative of physical laws of nature
16. The system of claim 3, wherein the hybridization processor is further configured to store a deterministic model of an athletic performance based upon mathematical equations representative of physical laws of nature
34. The system of claim 20, wherein the hybridization processor is further configured to store a deterministic model of an athletic performance based upon mathematical equations derived using principals from biology
17. The system of claim 3, wherein the hybridization processor is further configured to store a deterministic model of an athletic performance based upon mathematical equations derived using principals from biology
35. The system of claim 20, wherein the hybridization processor is configured as one or more standalone microprocessors; one or more application specific integrated circuits; one or more field programmable gate array; a set of microprocessors, application specific integrated circuits or field programmable gate arrays running concurrently over a local network; or a cloud processing environment wherein data and results are conveyed over a wide area network
18. The system of claim 3 or 15, wherein the hybridization processor is configured as one or more standalone microprocessors; one or more application specific integrated circuits; one or more field programmable gate array; a set of microprocessors, application specific integrated circuits or field programmable gate arrays running concurrently over a local network; or a cloud processing environment wherein data and results are conveyed over a wide area network
Claims 36 and 37 are substantially similar to claim 18, and therefore are also anticipated by at least claim 1 of the corresponding patent
As seen above, the only difference between the two set of claims is that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,521,526 B2 are specifically directed probability distributions of the athletic performance. The instant application’s claims are directed to a more general case and is broader than the ‘562 patent. Therefore, the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,521,526 B2.
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 18–37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 18:
Step 1 — Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes, claim 18 is directed to a system i.e., a machine.
Step 2A — Prong 1 Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
“the hybridized function further configured to generate predictions of the athletic performance of the individual”
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes, concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). In particular, with the aid of pen and paper, a human can use a function to generate a prediction.
Step 2A — Prong 2 — Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, there are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements:
“a system for evaluating or predicting athletic performance of an individual, comprising: a hybridization processor configured to receive and store” — This limitation is reciting generic computer components at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
“(i) a plurality of deterministic models, each deterministic model characterized by having as input a set of initial conditions of the athletic performance and an output representative of a prediction of said athletic performance” — This limitation is reciting generic computer components at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
“(ii) data obtained one or more remote sensors located on an individual, athletic equipment, or in an athletic environment that measure at least one aspect of the athletic performance of the individual” — This limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity and is merely data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
“said hybridization processor configured to” — This limitation is reciting generic computer components at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
“receive both the plurality of deterministic models and stochastic observational data from the one or more sensors” — This limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity and is merely data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
“said hybridization processor configured to” — This limitation is reciting generic computer components at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
“hybridize the stored plurality of deterministic models of the athletic performance and the stochastic observational data received from the sensors to produce as its output a hybridized function” — This limitation is reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply. See MPEP 2106.05(f); See also Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Step 2B — Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
“(ii) data obtained one or more remote sensors located on an individual, athletic equipment, or in an athletic environment that measure at least one aspect of the athletic performance of the individual” — This limitation is directed to the activity of data gathering which is not an inventive concept because it is insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). This limitation is well-understood, routine, and conventional because it involves transmitting information over a network. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
“receive both the plurality of deterministic models and stochastic observational data from the one or more sensors” — This limitation is directed to the activity of data gathering which is not an inventive concept because it is insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). This limitation is well-understood, routine, and conventional because it involves transmitting information over a network. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claim 19:
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 18 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 18 above). This claim merely recites a further limitation on the hybridization processor limitation which is directed to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional limitation:
“wherein the hybridization processor is further configured to iteratively incorporate new stochastic data to generate improved versions of the hybridized function” — This limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity and is merely data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)I.), failing Step 2A Prong 2.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. The additional elements:
“wherein the hybridization processor is further configured to iteratively incorporate new stochastic data to generate improved versions of the hybridized function” — This limitation is directed to the activity of data gathering which is not an inventive concept because it is insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). This limitation is well-understood, routine, and conventional because it involves transmitting information over a network. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(I.), failing step 2B.
Regarding Claim 20:
Step 1 — Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes, claim 20 depends from claim 18 (see analysis of claim 18 above) which is directed to a system i.e., a machine.
Step 2A — Prong 1 Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
“generate a probability distribution over possible output states, thereby enabling probabilistic predictions of the athletic performance of the individual”
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes, concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). In particular, with the aid of pen and paper, a human can generate probability distributions over possible outputs.
Step 2A — Prong 2 — Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, there are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitation:
“wherein the hybridization processor is configured to” — This limitation is reciting generic computer components at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B — Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 21:
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 18 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 18 above). This claim merely adds limitations directed to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and mere data outputting, respectively. The additional limitations:
“a video enhancement processor configured” — This limitation is reciting generic computer components at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
“provide one or more graphical representations of said predictions of the athletic performance” — This limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity and is merely data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)I.), failing Step 2A Prong 2.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
“provide one or more graphical representations of said predictions of the athletic performance” — This limitation is directed to the activity of data outputting which is not an inventive concept because it is insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). This limitation is well-understood, routine, and conventional because it involves presenting data based on results. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(I.), failing step 2B.
Regarding claim 22:
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 21 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 21 above). This claim merely adds limitations directed to mere data outputting and mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, respectively. The additional limitations:
“wherein an audible, visible, or haptic output is conveyed to at least one individual during an athletic competition” — This limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity and is merely data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
“by at least one of a wireless, wired, visual, or acoustic device” — This limitation is reciting generic computer components at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)I.), failing Step 2A Prong 2.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
“wherein an audible, visible, or haptic output is conveyed to at least one individual during an athletic competition” — This limitation is directed to the activity of data outputting which is not an inventive concept because it is insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). This limitation is well-understood, routine, and conventional because it involves presenting data based on results. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(I.), failing step 2B.
Regarding claim 23:
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 20 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 20 above). This claim merely adds limitations directed to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional limitations:
“an audio enhancement processor configured to” — This limitation is reciting generic computer components at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
“generate an audible representation of one or more aspects of the predictions of the athletic performance” — This limitation is reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply. See MPEP 2106.05(f); See also Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)I.), failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 24:
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 23 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 23 above). This claim merely adds limitations directed to mere data outputting and mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, respectively. The additional limitations:
“wherein an audible, visible, or haptic output is conveyed to at least one individual during an athletic competition” — This limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity and is merely data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
“by at least one of a wireless, wired, visual, or acoustic device” — This limitation is reciting generic computer components at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)I.), failing Step 2A Prong 2.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
“wherein an audible, visible, or haptic output is conveyed to at least one individual during an athletic competition” — This limitation is directed to the activity of data outputting which is not an inventive concept because it is insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). This limitation is well-understood, routine, and conventional because it involves presenting data based on results. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(I.), failing step 2B.
Regarding claim 25:
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 20 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 20 above). This claim merely adds limitations directed to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional limitations:
“a haptic enhancement processor configured to” — This limitation is reciting generic computer components at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
“generate a haptic representation of one or more aspects of the predictions of the athletic performance” — This limitation is reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply. See MPEP 2106.05(f); See also Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)I.), failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 26:
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 25 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 25 above). This claim merely adds limitations directed to mere data outputting and mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, respectively. The additional limitations:
“wherein an audible, visible, or haptic output is conveyed to at least one individual during an athletic competition” — This limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity and is merely data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
“by at least one of a wireless, wired, visual, or acoustic device” — This limitation is reciting generic computer components at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)I.), failing Step 2A Prong 2.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
“wherein an audible, visible, or haptic output is conveyed to at least one individual during an athletic competition” — This limitation is directed to the activity of data outputting which is not an inventive concept because it is insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). This limitation is well-understood, routine, and conventional because it involves presenting data based on results. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(I.), failing step 2B.
Regarding claim 27:
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 19 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 19 above). This claim merely recites a further limitation on the hybridization processor limitation which is directed to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional limitation:
“wherein the hybridization processor is further configured to” — This limitation is reciting generic computer components at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
“store a deterministic model of an athletic performance based upon mathematical equations representative of physical laws of nature” — This limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity and is merely data storing. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)I.), failing Step 2A Prong 2.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
“store a deterministic model of an athletic performance based upon mathematical equations representative of physical laws of nature” — This limitation is directed to the activity of storing data which is not an inventive concept because it is insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data storing. See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). This limitation is well-understood, routine, and conventional because it involves storing information in memory. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(I.), failing step 2B.
Regarding claim 28:
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 19 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 19 above). This claim merely recites a further limitation on the hybridization processor limitation which is directed to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional limitation:
“wherein the hybridization processor is further configured to” — This limitation is reciting generic computer components at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
“store a deterministic model of an athletic performance based upon mathematical equations derived using principals from biology” — This limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity and is merely data storing. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)I.), failing Step 2A Prong 2.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
“store a deterministic model of an athletic performance based upon mathematical equations derived using principals from biology” — This limitation is directed to the activity of storing data which is not an inventive concept because it is insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data storing. See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). This limitation is well-understood, routine, and conventional because it involves storing information in memory. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(I.), failing step 2B.
Regarding claim 29:
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 18 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 18 above). This claim merely recites a further limitation on the hybridization processor limitation which is directed to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional limitations:
“wherein the hybridization processor is configured as” — This limitation is reciting generic computer components at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
“one or more standalone microprocessors” — This limitation is reciting generic computer components at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
“one or more application specific integrated circuits” — This limitation is reciting generic computer components at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
“one or more field programmable gate array” — This limitation is reciting generic computer components at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
“a set of microprocessors, application specific integrated circuits or field programmable gate arrays running concurrently over a local network” — This limitation is reciting generic computer components at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
“cloud processing environment wherein data and results are conveyed over a wide area network” — This limitation is reciting generic computer components at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)I.), failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 30:
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 20 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 20 above). This claim merely recites a further limitation on the generate a probability distribution limitation which is directed to an abstract idea that can be performed in the human mind. The additional limitations:
“wherein the probability distribution is represented as at least one of a scatter plot, continuous distribution, histogram, heat map, and color contours” — These limitations are merely a continuation of the abstract idea in claim 18. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they cover mental processes, concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). In particular, with aid of pen of paper, a human can represent a probability distribution as at least one of a scatter plot, continuous distribution, histogram, heat map, and color contours.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)I.), failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 31:
Step 1 — Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes, claim 31 depends from claim 18 (see analysis of claim 18 above) which is directed to a system i.e., a machine.
Step 2A — Prong 1 Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
“wherein the plurality of deterministic models and the stochastic observational data are hybridized using one or more of [analog computing,] maximum entropy filtering, [neural networks,] nonlinear regression, and maximum likelihood estimation”
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and cover mental processes, concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). In particular, the above maximum entropy filtering, nonlinear regression, and maximum likelihood estimation cover mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations (see present disclosure paragraphs 0053, 0056, and 0082–0085).
Step 2A — Prong 2 — Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, there are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitation:
“wherein the plurality of deterministic models and the stochastic observational data are hybridized using one or more of analog computing, [maximum entropy filtering,] neural networks, [nonlinear regression, and maximum likelihood estimation]” — This limitation is reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply. See MPEP 2106.05(f); See also Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Step 2B — Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 32:
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 19 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 19 above). This claim merely recites a further limitation on the hybridization processor limitation which is directed to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional limitation:
“wherein the hybridization processor is further configured to iteratively incorporate new stochastic data to generate improved versions of the hybridized function” — This limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity and is merely data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)I.), failing Step 2A Prong 2.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. The additional elements:
“wherein the hybridization processor is further configured to iteratively incorporate new stochastic data to generate improved versions of the hybridized function” — This limitation is directed to the activity of data gathering which is not an inventive concept because it is insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com,