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 Claims
This is first office action on the merits in response to election filed on 03/21/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/10/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Section 101 analysis claim 1 is directed to a method and claim 13 is directed to a computing device (a process and an apparatus).
Under Step 2A Prong One, Claims 1 and 13 recite: transmitting a first play call from a computing device to a first wearable player electronic device; comparing the first play call to sporting activity game circumstance data, the sporting activity game circumstance data corresponding to a first time of a sporting activity game; based on the comparison and using the sporting activity game circumstance data, generating a first adjusted play call, the first adjusted play call including at least one change relative to the first play call and being different than the first play call; and transmitting the first adjusted play call to the first wearable player electronic device.
Claims 1 and 13 as drafted include language (see underlined language above) that recite an abstract idea of using situational data relating to a sporting event to adjust a play call in-game, which falls under mental process (i.e., including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the additional claim element(s), considered individually, do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and in a manner that integrates the exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional claim elements(s) “a computing device comprising non-transitory computer-executable instructions,” and “wearable player electronic device” generally “apply” the concept of using situational data relating to a sporting event to adjust a play call in-game. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the additional claim element(s), considered in combination, do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and in a manner that integrates the exception into a practical application of the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computing device comprising non-transitory computer-executable instructions and wearable player electronic device amounts to no more than applying the abstract idea of using situational data relating to a sporting event to adjust a play call in-game. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Under Step 2B, the additional claim element(s), considered individually and in combination, do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself for similar reasons outlined under Step 2A Prong Two.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 2 which claim “wherein the sporting activity game circumstance data comprises at least one image data frame that includes player positional formation data relative to a field of play and prior to start of a sporting activity play corresponding to the first play call” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 3 which claims “wherein the at least one image data frame comprises first player positional formation data, of a first player, relative to the field of play and relative to a predetermined assigned first positional region for the first player prior to start of the sporting activity play corresponding to the first play call” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claims 4 and parts of 16 and 20 which claims “wherein the first adjusted play call is generated, at least in part, by comparing the at least one image data frame, which includes the player positional formation data, to the predetermined assigned first positional region for the first player to generate the first adjusted play call that includes at least one change in both a specified direction and a specified distance to the position of the first player within the predetermined assigned first positional region for the first player” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claims 5 and parts of 17 and 20 which claims “wherein the sporting activity is a baseball game, and wherein the first adjusted play call is generated, at least in part, by comparing the at least one image data frame, which includes the player positional formation data, to the predetermined assigned first positional region for the first player using a pitch call for the sporting activity play to determine the at least one change in both the specified direction and the specified distance to the position of the first player within the predetermined assigned first positional region for the first player” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 6 which claims “wherein, when the pitch call comprises a first pitch type and a first pitch location, generating the first adjusted play call, at least in part, by comparing the at least one image data frame, which includes the player positional formation data, to the predetermined assigned first positional region for the first player using the first pitch type and the first pitch location to determine the at least one change comprising both the specified direction in a first direction and the specified distance of a first magnitude to the position of the first player within the predetermined assigned first positional region for the first player” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 7 which claims “wherein, when the pitch call comprises a second, different pitch type and/or a second, different pitch location, generating the first adjusted play call, at least in part, by comparing the at least one image data frame, which includes the player positional formation data, to the predetermined assigned first positional region for the first player using the second, different pitch type and the second, different pitch location to determine the at least one change comprising both the specified direction in a second, different direction and/or the specified distance of a second, different magnitude to the position of the first player within the predetermined assigned first positional region for the first player” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 8 which claims “wherein transmitting the first adjusted play call to the first wearable player electronic device comprises transmitting both the specified direction in the second, different direction and the specified distance of the second, different magnitude to the position of the first player within the predetermined assigned first positional region for the first player to the first wearable player electronic device” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 9 which claims “wherein the first adjusted play call is generated by the computing device, at least in part, using batter data, which comprises one or more outcomes of one or more prior at-bats when the pitch call comprises the second, different pitch type and the second, different pitch location, to include the at least one change in both the specified direction and the specified distance to the position of the first player within the predetermined assigned first positional region for the first player” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claims 10, 14, and part of 16 which claim “transmitting the first play call from the computing device to a second, different wearable player electronic device; and transmitting the first adjusted play call to the first wearable player electronic device while refraining from transmitting the first adjusted play call to the second, different wearable player electronic device” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claims 11, 15, and part of 20 which claim “based on the comparison and using the sporting activity game circumstance data, generating a second adjusted play call, the second adjusted play call including at least one change relative to the first play call and being different than the first adjusted play call; and transmitting the second adjusted play call to the second wearable player electronic device while refraining from transmitting the second adjusted play call to the first wearable player electronic device” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claims 12 and part of 17 which claim “wherein the first wearable player electronic device corresponds to a pitcher player in the sporting activity game, and wherein the second wearable player electronic device corresponds to a non-pitcher positional player in the sporting activity game” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 18 which claims “wherein the non-transitory computer-executable instructions, when executed by programmable processing circuitry of the computing device, cause the programmable processing circuitry of the computing device to transmit the first adjusted play call to the second wearable player electronic device while refraining from transmitting the first adjusted play call to first wearable player electronic device prior to execution by the pitcher of the pitch call” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 19 which claims “wherein the non-transitory computer-executable instructions, when executed by programmable processing circuitry of the computing device, cause the programmable processing circuitry of the computing device to extract player positional formation data relative to the field of play from the at least one image data frame” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(2)
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)(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 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Masegian (US 20240342577).
Regarding Claims 1 and 13, Masegian teaches transmitting a first play call from a computing device to a first wearable player electronic device (Paragraphs 0021, 0088, and 0136 teach a client device refers to devices corresponding to wearable devices; prior to the first offensive play, a user input can initially provide situational information (e.g., down, yardage, field position, time following an initial kick-off); the game data store interface identifies a game data update that reflects the initial situational information; the execution component can update the set of model parameters used by play/scheme selection logic, where the candidate set may or may not change; further, the execution component can execute play/scheme selection logic to generate or update the set candidate set of play calls; the recommendation engine can deploy one or more models during the game; the deployed models can include one or more models for recommending play calls for the user (when the user's team is on offense) and/or defensive schemes (when the user's team is on defense)); comparing the first play call to sporting activity game circumstance data, the sporting activity game circumstance data corresponding to a first time of a sporting activity game (Paragraphs 0083 and 0089 teach the game data store interface can include processes that continuously or repeatedly read from the game data store to identify updates to the game data store, and further communicate gamed data updates to the model tuning/update component; the game data updates can include situational information (e.g., down, yardage, field position, time, etc.), identification of opponent's defensive scheme (when user is on offense) or opponent's play calls (when user is on defense), and outcomes of the play calls; the game data store interface automatically detects the update to the game data store (corresponding to the offensive defensive scheme identified by the user), and communicates corresponding game data update to the model tuning/update component; subsequently, the game data store interface can detect an entry from the user identifying the defensive scheme of the opponent; the corresponding game data update identifies the defensive scheme; the model tuning/update component compares the identified defensive scheme to the prediction(s) generated by opponent play/scheme prediction logic for that play); based on the comparison and using the sporting activity game circumstance data, generating a first adjusted play call, the first adjusted play call including at least one change relative to the first play call and being different than the first play call (Paragraphs 0081, 0085, 0089, and 0137 teach the models that are developed for execution during game time include adaptive models that tune or update during game time; still further, the models can be generative to devise new plays, rather than select plays from a library; the execution component can be responsive to game update data (e.g., user enters information in advance of a play); for example, based on situational information, the execution component can run to recommend a candidate set of plays (e.g., based on a likelihood of achieving an efficient outcome), as well as to predict an offensive play call or defensive scheme of the opponent.; the execution component can receive the model updates and implement updates to the executed models; the model tuning/update component can generate the model update to update, for example, weights or probabilistic values of the model parameters for the model(s) used by opponent play/scheme prediction logic, based on the correctness of the prediction; for example, if the predicted defensive scheme was correct, then the model update may generate the model update to reinforce the model deployed with opponent play/scheme prediction logic; on the other hand, if the prediction is wrong, the model update can provide tuning for the model; the recommendation engine uses the deployed models to generate recommended data sets for an upcoming play, where the recommended data set identifies (i) one or more play calls (when the user's team is on offense), (ii) defensive schemes (when the user's team is on defense), and optionally (iii) predicted outcomes for the selected play call or defensive scheme; the recommendation engine identifies as input, situational information (e.g., down, yardage, field position, time, etc.), which can be determined from user input recorded with the game data store); and transmitting the first adjusted play call to the first wearable player electronic device (Paragraphs 0086-0087 teach the execution component can implement the model updates in real-time (or near real-time), such that the recommended data sets are dynamically updated on the recommendation panel; the recommendation panel can dynamically update to reflect updates to the recommended data sets).
Regarding Claim 1, Masegian teaches a method (Paragraph 0135 teaches FIG. 3B illustrates an example method for generating a recommended data set that identifies play calls and/or defensive schemes in context of a game, according to one or more examples).
Regarding Claim 13, Masegian teaches a computing device comprising non-transitory computer-executable instructions that, when executed by programmable processing circuitry of the computing device, cause the programmable processing circuitry of the computing device to perform operations (Paragraph 0025 teaches one or more embodiments described herein may be implemented through the use of instructions that are executable by one or more processors; these instructions may be carried on a computer-readable medium; machines shown or described with figures below provide examples of processing resources and computer-readable mediums on which instructions for implementing embodiments of the invention can be carried and/or executed; the numerous machines shown with embodiments of the invention include processor(s) and various forms of memory for holding data and instructions).
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.
Claims 2-4, 10-12, 14-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masegian (US 20240342577) in view of Thomas (US 20240428121).
Regarding Claim 2, Masegian teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, Masegian does not explicitly teach wherein the sporting activity game circumstance data comprises at least one image data frame that includes player positional formation data relative to a field of play and prior to start of a sporting activity play corresponding to the first play call.
Thomas from same or similar field of endeavors teaches wherein the sporting activity game circumstance data comprises at least one image data frame that includes player positional formation data relative to a field of play and prior to start of a sporting activity play corresponding to the first play call (Paragraphs 0002 and 0005 teach in the FIG. 1 scenario, the quarterback sees something in the middle of the field and presses the receiver button on his wearable device to begin changing the play; he only wants to change the route of WR1; he speaks a phrase like “WR1 go route” or “Wide receiver McLaurin run straight down the field” or “Number 17 run straight” and the artificial intelligence algorithm should understand and interpret the words the Quarterback is saying and update the route and overall look of the play on everyone's device in the team view but only the affected player sees in a change in their “Player's View;” the updated generated display of the team view and players view is shown in FIG. 2; the process seeks to establish how artificial intelligence is used to interpret commands for actions associated with team sports and responding by generating a display, picture, video, or audio representation of plays, formations, audibles, route changes or any action related to team sports where the positioning and actions of players can be displayed for a user wearing the device relative to their required actions).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified Masegian to incorporate the teachings of Thomas for the sporting activity game circumstance data to comprise at least one image data frame that includes player positional formation data relative to a field of play and prior to start of a sporting activity play corresponding to the first play call.
There is motivation to combine Thomas into Masegian because the invention is a group of devices, numbering a minimum of two, where they communicate together based on the role of each device and depicts the change in the role or position of the player wearing the device based on a command from a responsible party. The devices use artificial intelligence to recognize and generate displays of formations, play calls, player positions, player roles and expected actions to improve performance (Thomas Paragraph 0001).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Masegian and Thomas teaches all the limitations of claim 2 above; however, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one image data frame comprises first player positional formation data, of a first player, relative to the field of play and relative to a predetermined assigned first positional region for the first player prior to start of the sporting activity play corresponding to the first play call, and wherein the first adjusted play call is generated to include an adjustment of a position of the first player within the predetermined assigned first positional region for the first player.
Thomas further teaches wherein the at least one image data frame comprises first player positional formation data, of a first player, relative to the field of play and relative to a predetermined assigned first positional region for the first player prior to start of the sporting activity play corresponding to the first play call (Paragraph 0002 teaches in the FIG. 1 scenario, the quarterback sees something in the middle of the field and presses the receiver button on his wearable device to begin changing the play; he only wants to change the route of WR1; he speaks a phrase like “WR1 go route” or “Wide receiver McLaurin run straight down the field” or “Number 17 run straight” and the artificial intelligence algorithm should understand and interpret the words the Quarterback is saying and update the route and overall look of the play on everyone's device in the team view but only the affected player sees in a change in their “Player's View”), and wherein the first adjusted play call is generated to include an adjustment of a position of the first player within the predetermined assigned first positional region for the first player (Paragraph 0002 teaches the updated generated display of the team view and players view is shown in FIG. 2)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Masegian and Thomas to incorporate the further teachings of Thomas for the at least one image data frame to comprise first player positional formation data, of a first player, relative to the field of play and relative to a predetermined assigned first positional region for the first player prior to start of the sporting activity play corresponding to the first play call, and for the first adjusted play call to be generated to include an adjustment of a position of the first player within the predetermined assigned first positional region for the first player.
There is motivation to further combine Thomas into the combination of Masegian and Thomas because of the same reasons listed above for claim 2.
Regarding Claims 4 and part of 16 and 20, the combination of Masegian and Thomas teaches all the limitations of claims 3, 15, and 13 above; however, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the first adjusted play call is generated, at least in part, by comparing the at least one image data frame, which includes the player positional formation data, to the predetermined assigned first positional region for the first player to generate the first adjusted play call that includes at least one change in both a specified direction and a specified distance to the position of the first player within the predetermined assigned first positional region for the first player.
Thomas further teaches wherein the first adjusted play call is generated, at least in part, by comparing the at least one image data frame, which includes the player positional formation data, to the predetermined assigned first positional region for the first player to generate the first adjusted play call that includes at least one change in both a specified direction and a specified distance to the position of the first player within the predetermined assigned first positional region for the first player (Paragraph 0002 teaches in the FIG. 1 scenario, the quarterback sees something in the middle of the field and presses the receiver button on his wearable device to begin changing the play; he only wants to change the route of WR1; he speaks a phrase like “WR1 go route” or “Wide receiver McLaurin run straight down the field” or “Number 17 run straight” and the artificial intelligence algorithm should understand and interpret the words the Quarterback is saying and update the route and overall look of the play on everyone's device in the team view but only the affected player sees in a change in their “Player's View”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Masegian and Thomas to incorporate the further teachings of Thomas for the first adjusted play call to be generated, at least in part, by comparing the at least one image data frame, which includes the player positional formation data, to the predetermined assigned first positional region for the first player to generate the first adjusted play call that includes at least one change in both a specified direction and a specified distance to the position of the first player within the predetermined assigned first positional region for the first player.
There is motivation to further combine Thomas into the combination of Masegian and Thomas because of the same reasons listed above for claim 2.
Regarding Claims 10, 14, and part of 16, Masegian teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, Masegian does not explicitly teach transmitting the first play call from the computing device to a second, different wearable player electronic device; and transmitting the first adjusted play call to the first wearable player electronic device while refraining from transmitting the first adjusted play call to the second, different wearable player.
Thomas from same or similar field of endeavors teaches transmitting the first play call from the computing device to a second, different wearable player electronic device (Paragraph 0002 teaches he speaks a phrase like “WR1 go route” or “Wide receiver McLaurin run straight down the field” or “Number 17 run straight” and the artificial intelligence algorithm should understand and interpret the words the Quarterback is saying and update the route and overall look of the play on everyone's device in the team view but only the affected player sees in a change in their “Player's View;” the updated generated display of the team view and players view is shown in FIG. 2); and transmitting the first adjusted play call to the first wearable player electronic device while refraining from transmitting the first adjusted play call to the second, different wearable player electronic device (Paragraph 0003 teaches the screen is split into two sections where the player's expected actions “Player View” is shown in one and the team's overall expected actions “Team View” is shown in another; the Artificial intelligence algorithm should also be able to relay pertinent information to individual the player like whether they should expect the ball or any special details it was trained to expect that might come from the quarterback).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified Masegian to incorporate the teachings of Thomas to transmit the first play call from the computing device to a second, different wearable player electronic device; and transmit the first adjusted play call to the first wearable player electronic device while refraining from transmitting the first adjusted play call to the second, different wearable player.
There is motivation to combine Thomas into Masegian because of the same reasons listed above for claim 2.
Regarding Claims 11 and part of 15 and 20, the combination of Masegian and Thomas teaches all the limitations of claims 3, 14, and 13 above; however, the combination does not explicitly teach based on the comparison and using the sporting activity game circumstance data, generating a second adjusted play call, the second adjusted play call including at least one change relative to the first play call and being different than the first adjusted play call; and transmitting the second adjusted play call to the second wearable player electronic device while refraining from transmitting the second adjusted play call to the first wearable player electronic device.
Thomas further teaches based on the comparison and using the sporting activity game circumstance data, generating a second adjusted play call, the second adjusted play call including at least one change relative to the first play call and being different than the first adjusted play call (Paragraph 0001 teaches the invention is a group of devices, numbering a minimum of two, where they communicate together based on the role of each device and depicts the change in the role or position of the player wearing the device based on a command from a responsible party; the devices use artificial intelligence to recognize and generate displays of formations, play calls, player positions, player roles and expected actions); and transmitting the second adjusted play call to the second wearable player electronic device while refraining from transmitting the second adjusted play call to the first wearable player electronic device (Paragraphs 0003 and 0005 teach the screen is split into two sections where the player's expected actions “Player View” is shown in one and the team's overall expected actions “Team View” is shown in another; the Artificial intelligence algorithm should also be able to relay pertinent information to individual the player like whether they should expect the ball or any special details it was trained to expect that might come from the quarterback; the process seeks to establish how artificial intelligence is used to interpret commands for actions associated with team sports and responding by generating a display, picture, video, or audio representation of plays, formations, audibles, route changes or any action related to team sports where the positioning and actions of players can be displayed for a user wearing the device relative to their required actions).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Masegian and Thomas to incorporate the further teachings of Thomas to based on the comparison and using the sporting activity game circumstance data, generate a second adjusted play call, the second adjusted play call including at least one change relative to the first play call and being different than the first adjusted play call; and transmit the second adjusted play call to the second wearable player electronic device while refraining from transmitting the second adjusted play call to the first wearable player electronic device.
There is motivation to further combine Thomas into the combination of Masegian and Thomas because of the same reasons listed above for claim 2.
Regarding Claims 12 and parts of 17, the combination of Masegian and Thomas teaches all the limitations of claims 11 and 16 above; however, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the first wearable player electronic device corresponds to a pitcher player in the sporting activity game, and wherein the second wearable player electronic device corresponds to a non-pitcher positional player in the sporting activity game.
Thomas further teaches wherein the first wearable player electronic device corresponds to a pitcher player in the sporting activity game (Paragraph 0002 teaches in the FIG. 1 scenario, the quarterback sees something in the middle of the field and presses the receiver button on his wearable device to begin changing the play), and wherein the second wearable player electronic device corresponds to a non-pitcher positional player in the sporting activity game (Paragraph 0002 teaches he only wants to change the route of WR1; he speaks a phrase like “WR1 go route” or “Wide receiver McLaurin run straight down the field” or “Number 17 run straight” and the artificial intelligence algorithm should understand and interpret the words the Quarterback is saying and update the route and overall look of the play on everyone's device in the team view but only the affected player sees in a change in their “Player's View;” the updated generated display of the team view and players view is shown in FIG. 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Masegian and Thomas to incorporate the teachings of House for the first wearable player electronic device to correspond to a pitcher player in the sporting activity game, and for the second wearable player electronic device to correspond to a non-pitcher positional player in the sporting activity game.
There is motivation to combine House into the combination of Masegian and Thomas because of the same reasons listed above for claim 2.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Masegian and Thomas teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above; however, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the non-transitory computer-executable instructions, when executed by programmable processing circuitry of the computing device, cause the programmable processing circuitry of the computing device to extract player positional formation data relative to the field of play from the at least one image data frame.
Thomas further teaches wherein the non-transitory computer-executable instructions, when executed by programmable processing circuitry of the computing device, cause the programmable processing circuitry of the computing device to extract player positional formation data relative to the field of play from the at least one image data frame (Paragraph 0002 teaches In the FIG. 1 scenario, the quarterback sees something in the middle of the field and presses the receiver button on his wearable device to begin changing the play; he only wants to change the route of WR1; he speaks a phrase like “WR1 go route” or “Wide receiver McLaurin run straight down the field” or “Number 17 run straight” and the artificial intelligence algorithm should understand and interpret the words the Quarterback is saying and update the route and overall look of the play on everyone’s device in the team view but only the affected player sees in a change in their “Player's View”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Masegian and Thomas to incorporate the further teachings of Thomas to transmit the first adjusted play call to the second wearable player electronic device while refraining from transmitting the first adjusted play call to extract player positional formation data relative to the field of play from the at least one image data frame.
There is motivation to further combine Thomas into the combination of Masegian and Thomas because of the same reasons listed above for claim 2.
Claims 5-7, 9, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masegian (US 20240342577) in view of Thomas (US 20240428121) in further view of House (US 20210350833).
Regarding Claims 5 and part of 17 and 20, the combination of Masegian and Thomas teaches all the limitations of claims 4, 16, and 13 above; however, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the sporting activity is a baseball game, and wherein the first adjusted play call is generated, at least in part, by comparing the at least one image data frame, which includes the player positional formation data, to the predetermined assigned first positional region for the first player using a pitch call for the sporting activity play to determine the at least one change in both the specified direction and the specified distance to the position of the first player within the predetermined assigned first positional region for the first player.
House from same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the sporting activity is a baseball game (Paragraph 0021 teaches FIG. 2 demonstrates play analysis associated with a sequence according to an embodiment. In this example, a sequence related to a fielded ground ball in baseball may be analyzed), and wherein the first adjusted play call is generated, at least in part, by comparing the at least one image data frame, which includes the player positional formation data, to the predetermined assigned first positional region for the first player using a pitch call for the sporting activity play to determine the at least one change in both the specified direction and the specified distance to the position of the first player within the predetermined assigned first positional region for the first player (Paragraphs 0021, 0047, and 0049 teach Fig. 2 demonstrates play analysis associated with a sequence according to an embodiment; in this example, a sequence related to a fielded ground ball in baseball may be analyzed; each frame of the diagrams corresponds to a temporal location in time on the film strip; the stages of the play include the pitcher releasing the ball, the batter hitting the ball, the 2nd baseman fielding the groundball, the 2nd baseman throwing the ball to the 1st baseman, the 1st baseman catching the ball, and the batter touching the 1st base bag; such plays or actions of a play may be determined from measurements obtained from observing actions in the sporting event; the animated view may comprise are presentation that demonstrates the dynamic positions of players on the playing surface overtime, according to another embodiment; this may be shown as a top down (top view) perspective; formation or play analysis may be used to navigate to similar situations in previous parts of the game, or previous games...spatial position of players in a play set may be used to match like plays elsewhere in the database, and made available for sequential viewing in the video and animated displays, with supporting representation in the diagram view; this would allow a coach to compare the current scenario against previous examples; actual data may be used to compute variations or defects in the formations and related to the outcome of the play; alternately, it may show the play formation look of the offense and defense and demonstrate the variations of play sets that follow).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Masegian and Thomas to incorporate the teachings of House for at least one of the first promotional currency conversion event and the second, different promotional currency conversion event to automatically occur based on a credit balance of the electronic gaming machine.
There is motivation to combine House into the combination of Masegian and Thomas because this graphic may allow coaches to illustrate to pitchers the potential liability of pitching a batter in a particular location, and to instruct fielders on the fine points of positioning in the field when it may be necessary to compensate (House Paragraph 0023).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Masegian, Thomas, and House teaches all the limitations of claim 5 above; however, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein, when the pitch call comprises a first pitch type and a first pitch location, generating the first adjusted play call, at least in part, by comparing the at least one image data frame, which includes the player positional formation data, to the predetermined assigned first positional region for the first player using the first pitch type and the first pitch location to determine the at least one change comprising both the specified direction in a first direction and the specified distance of a first magnitude to the position of the first player within the predetermined assigned first positional region for the first player.
House further teaches wherein, when the pitch call comprises a first pitch type and a first pitch location, generating the first adjusted play call, at least in part, by comparing the at least one image data frame, which includes the player positional formation data, to the predetermined assigned first positional region for the first player using the first pitch type and the first pitch location to determine the at least one change comprising both the specified direction in a first direction and the specified distance of a first magnitude to the position of the first player within the predetermined assigned first positional region for the first player (Paragraphs 0021, 0047, and 0049 teach Fig. 2 demonstrates play analysis associated with a sequence according to an embodiment; in this example, a sequence related to a fielded ground ball in baseball may be analyzed; each frame of the diagrams corresponds to a temporal location in time on the film strip; the stages of the play include the pitcher releasing the ball, the batter hitting the ball, the 2nd baseman fielding the groundball, the 2nd baseman throwing the ball to the 1st baseman, the 1st baseman catching the ball, and the batter touching the 1st base bag; such plays or actions of a play may be determined from measurements obtained from observing actions in the sporting event; the animated view may comprise are presentation that demonstrates the dynamic positions of players on the playing surface overtime, according to another embodiment; this may be shown as a top down (top view) perspective; formation or play analysis may be used to navigate to similar situations in previous parts of the game, or previous games...spatial position of players in a play set may be used to match like plays elsewhere in the database, and made available for sequential viewing in the video and animated displays, with supporting representation in the diagram view; this would allow a coach to compare the current scenario against previous examples; actual data may be used to compute variations or defects in the formations and related to the outcome of the play; alternately, it may show the play formation look of the offense and defense and demonstrate the variations of play sets that follow).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Masegian, Thomas, and House to incorporate the further teachings of House for,when the pitch call comprises a first pitch type and a first pitch location, generate the first adjusted play call, at least in part, by comparing the at least one image data frame, which includes the player positional formation data, to the predetermined assigned first positional region for the first player using the first pitch type and the first pitch location to determine the at least one change comprising both the specified direction in a first direction and the specified distance of a first magnitude to the position of the first player within the pr