Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 pass step 1 of the test for eligibility.
As per step 2A prong one, the claims are evaluated to determine whether the claims recite a judicial exception. Representative claim 1 recites, with emphasis added:
A user interface device for game management, the user interface device including
one or more processors;
memory to store instructions;
wherein the one or more processors execute instructions stored in memory to perform operations comprising:
generating, for a user managing a user’s team during a course of a game, a user interface that includes a plurality of regions, the plurality of regions including one or more regions to enable a user to specify one of a play call or a scheme;
wherein the user interface includes a dynamic panel that overlays one or more of the plurality of regions, the dynamic panel displaying team-specific analytic information that is updated responsively to game events that affect the analytic information.
The above underlined portion of representative claim 1 recites a judicial exception because they can be performed with the human mind or pen and paper, such as a coach specifying a play, as well as the coach tracking and using team specific analytic information that is updated responsively to game events that affect the analytic information (as well as identifying candidate sets of play calls or defensive schemes as per claims 11 and 20).
Next, as per step 2A prong two, the claims are evaluated to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
The elements recited above that are not underlined in representative claim 1 comprise the additional elements. As discussed in more detail below, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
One or more processors, and memory to store instructions is/are not an integration into a practical application as it is mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
The user interface that includes a plurality of regions, and dynamic panel that overlays the one or more regions is/are extra-solution activity as these extra solution activities are insignificant data gathering and data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Although user interfaces may amount to significantly more than the abstract idea this user interface appears to be an extra solutionary generic display interface as it merely includes generically claimed “regions” and a window (“dynamic panel”) which is placed in front of the regions.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Next, as per step 2B, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception.
One or more processors, and memory to store instructions does not amount to significantly more as it is mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
The user interface that includes a plurality of regions, and dynamic panel that overlays the one or more regions is/are extra-solution activity as these extra solution activities are well known data gathering and data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), thus they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Although user interfaces may amount to significantly more than the abstract idea this user interface appears to be an extra solutionary generic display interface as it merely includes generically claimed “regions” and a window (“dynamic panel”) which is placed in front of the regions.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The dependent claims of 2-10, and 12-19 are further rejected under 101 for the reasons described above as they simply further define the abstract idea (which makes the abstract idea no less abstract) without adding significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) and do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Further, taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 15-17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O’Leary (US 20210287565).
In claims 1, 11, and 20, O’Leary discloses
One or more processors, memory to store instructions, wherein the one or more processors execute instructions stored in memory to perform operations comprising: (paragraph 7)
Generating, for a user managing a user’s team during a course of a game, a user interface that includes a plurality of regions, the plurality of regions including one or more regions to enable to user to specify one of a play call or a scheme (figure 4 shows a plurality of regions, #234, 236 enables the user to specify one of a play call or scheme, such as “PAT”. Paragraph 47 describes “ a run PAT button 236 is also included and may measure game winning probability in view of attempting an extra point after a touchdown” . PAT is a play call)
Wherein the user interface includes a dynamic panel that overlays one or more of the plurality of regions , the dynamic panel displaying team specific analytic information that is updated responsively to game events that effect the analytic information (figure 7, paragraph 49. “fig. 7 illustrates one example of a monitor 146, 147 wherein the media networking module 144 changes a video feed to illustrate a modified version of the fourth down conversion indicator 238 which may be overlaid over live game footages 240”, the live footage is shown as one of the panels in figure 5)
In claims 3, 11, and 20, O’Leary further discloses generating recommendation output on the dynamic panel, the recommendation output identifying one or more of a candidate set of play calls or defensive schemes (figure 15, paragraph 56, this shows win probability based on the fourth down conversion chances. The highest win probability would be the recommendation output. As described above, the fourth down conversion indicator may be overlaid over live game footages 240)
In claims 4 and 13, O’Leary discloses developing one or more models for selecting, from a library of play calls or defensive schemes, an optimal set of play calls or defensive schemes for the user’s team to run for one or more subsequent plays during a game, wherein the one or more models are developed based on historical information including historical information about play calls and/or defensive schemes that the user’s team used in prior games including outcomes of the play calls and/or defensive schemes and situational information when the play call and/or defensive schemes were used and wherein generating the recommendation output is based at least in part on deploying the one or more models during the game (paragraph 38 discloses the historical data being relied upon which includes historical data of the team. This historical data is used for the projections as shown in paragraphs 54-61, With respect to the “library of play calls”, the library may be taught from something as simple as “pass” “run” punt” “field goal” as per figure 15, paragraph 56)
In claims 6 and 15, O’Leary discloses determining an outcome of a selected play call or defensive scheme and updating, during the game and in response to determining the outcome, at least one of the one or more models based on the determined outcome (the statistics and situation is tracked in real time and changes the probability, figure 5 for example shows that it is 1st and 10, and the score is 7-0 in Q4, with the odds being affected by the current situation in the game)
In claims 7 and 16, O’Leary discloses executing one or more updated models to update the candidate set of play calls or defensive schemes, and dynamically changing the candidate set of play calls or defensive schemes on the dynamic panel (the 4th down conversion chances will be changed and different based on the current live situation in the game, see paragraph 47 which states “because of the advanced stage in the game and the fact that the offensive team is losing by 6 points, the game winning chance is only 27%”, this is also shown in figure 16)
In claims 8 and 17, O’Leary discloses determining the outcome of the selected play includes determining whether the execution of the play call during the game resulted in an efficient outcome (all of the plays are considered, as the current situation is considered. The clearest example would be that when a field goal attempt was successful, it would result in 3 additional points)
In claims 10 and 19, O’Leary discloses the one or more models include situational specific models, and wherein the operations further comprise selecting one or more models for a next or upcoming paly or series of plays based on a current situational information (figures 10 and 11, paragraph 52)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2, 9, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Leary
In claims 2 and 12, O’Leary discloses the claimed invention except for the dynamic panel is moveable as an overlay of the user interface, however Official notice is taken that movement of display panels was notoriously well known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine O’Leary with this well known technique in order to allow for the user to be able to see the display information or video which is behind the display panel.
In claims 9 and 18, O’Leary discloses the claimed invention except the one or more models include stochastic machine learning models, however Official notice is taken that stochastic machine learning models were notoriously well known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine O’Leary with this well known technique in order to allow for a model to be built faster
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Leary in view of Han (US 11,452,926)
In claims 5 and 14 O’Leary discloses the claimed invention except for developing one or more models for predicting a play call or defensive scheme for an opponent to run for one or more subsequent plays during a game, wherein the one or more models are developed based on historical information including historical information about paly calls and/or defensive schemes that the opponent’s team used in prior games, including a number of instances a play call or defensive scheme was used and situation information for when the opposing team used the play calls and/or defensive schemes, and wherein generating the recommendation output is based at least on part on predicting the opponent’s play call or defensive scheme for a next or upcoming play, however Han discloses developing one or more models for predicting a play call or defensive scheme for an opponent to run for one or more subsequent plays during a game, wherein the one or more models are developed based on historical information including historical information about paly calls and/or defensive schemes that the opponent’s team used in prior games, including a number of instances a play call or defensive scheme was used and situation information for when the opposing team used the play calls and/or defensive schemes, and wherein generating the recommendation output is based at least on part on predicting the opponent’s play call or defensive scheme for a next or upcoming play (figure 4B and 4C shows examples of predicted opponent plays. Column 6 lines 29-47 discloses analyzing offensive play calling tendencies of an opponent and relying upon an opponent’s past games for information about their tendencies. Column 8 lines 20-34 discloses that this information is associated with the situation of the play call such as down, field position, score, time, etc. figure 7 #560 shows a display of recommendations which are based upon the predicted opponent plays, as described in column 14 lines 54-63 “formulates recommendations to the user with regard to likely effective schemes”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine O’Leary with Han in order to allow for recommendations based upon a wider range of relevant data which affects the result of the play calls.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS HAYNES HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-3905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS H HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715