DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) “A method comprising: obtaining a video broadcast of a sporting event; processing each frame of the video broadcast to identify players on a first team and a second team, a location of each identified player, a matchup between each defending identified player and a corresponding offensive identified player, and a distance between each defending identified player and the corresponding offensive identified player; aggregating, for each frame, the distance between a first defending identified player and a first offensive identified player that the first defending identified player is matched up against to generate an aggregated distance between the first defending identified player and the first offensive identified player during the sporting event; and generating a defensive influence score for the first defending identified player based on the aggregated distance of the first defending identified player.” (Claim 1); “A system comprising: a processor; and a memory having programming instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by the processor, performs one or more operations comprising: obtaining a video broadcast of a sporting event; processing each frame of the video broadcast to identify players on a first team and a second team, a location of each identified player, a matchup between each defending identified player and a corresponding offensive identified player, and a distance between each defending identified player and the corresponding offensive identified player; aggregating, for each frame, the distance between a first defending identified player and a first offensive identified player that the first defending identified player is matched up against to generate an aggregated distance between the first defending identified player and the first offensive identified player during the sporting event; and generating a defensive influence score for the first defending identified player based on the aggregated distance of the first defending identified player.” (Claim 9); and “A non-transitory computer readable medium including one or more sequences of instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to: obtain a video broadcast of a sporting event; process each frame of the video broadcast to identify at least players on a first team and a second team, a location of each identified player, a matchup between each defending identified player and a corresponding offensive identified player, and a distance between each defending identified player and the corresponding offensive identified player; aggregate, for each frame, the distance between a first defending identified player and a first offensive identified player that the first defending identified player is matched up against to generate an both aggregated distance between the first defending identified player and the corresponding offensive identified player during an entirety of the sporting event and average distances between the first defending identified player and the first offensive identified player during a set of time ranges in which the first defending identified player played during the sporting event; and generate a defensive influence score for the first defending identified player based on the aggregated distance of the first defending identified player, wherein the defensive influence score comprises both an aggregate defensive influence score for the first defending identified player for the entirety of the sporting event and a set of defensive influence scores for each of the set of time ranges in which the first defending identified player played during the sporting event” (Claim 16). Each of the above underlined portions are related to an abstract idea of Certain Methods of mental processes particularly concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or Organizing Human Activity particularly concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions for or to determine a defensive influence score for a defending player based on an aggregated distance of the defending player). Analyzing frames to identify players on a first team and a second team, a location of each identified player, a matchup between each defending identified player and a corresponding offensive identified player, and a distance between each defending identified player and the corresponding offensive identified player; aggregating, for each frame, the distance between a first defending identified player and a first offensive identified player that the first defending identified player is matched up against to generate an aggregated distance between the first defending identified player and the first offensive identified player during the sporting event; and generating a defensive influence score for the first defending identified player based on the aggregated distance of the first defending identified player (Claims 1 and 9); and/or or generate a defensive influence score for the first defending identified player based on the aggregated distance of the first defending identified player, wherein the defensive influence score comprises both an aggregate defensive influence score for the first defending identified player for the entirety of the sporting event and a set of defensive influence scores for each of the set of time ranges in which the first defending identified player played during the sporting event (Claim 16) pertain to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) pertaining to organizing human activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (particularly the technological environment of a gaming device and/or gaming system) (MPEP 2106.05 (h)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of a “system”, “processor”, “memory”, and/or “medium”) are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility (the use of a computing device and/or generic components is merely illustrating the environment in which the abstract idea is practiced). These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. Taking the physical elements individually and in combination, the computer-based components perform purely generic computer-based functions that are silent in regards to clearly indicating how a computer aids the method, system, and/or medium to which a computer performs/implements the method, system, and/or medium. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer, ’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Furthermore, the applicant discloses (US 2024/0342552) the “Network 105 may be of any suitable type, including individual connections via the Internet, such as cellular or Wi-Fi networks.” (¶ 33); “For example, client device 108 may be a mobile device, a tablet, a desktop computer, or any computing system having the capabilities described herein.” (¶ 45); “Processor 710 may include any general-purpose processor and a hardware module or software module, such as service 1 732, service 2 734, and service 3 736 stored in storage device 730, configured to control processor 710 as well as a special-purpose processor where software instructions are incorporated into the actual processor design. Processor 710 may essentially be a completely self-contained computing system, containing multiple cores or processors, a bus, memory controller, cache, etc. A multi-core processor may be symmetric or asymmetric.” (¶ 75): “To enable user interaction with system 700, an input device 745 may represent any number of input mechanisms, such as a microphone for speech, a touch-sensitive screen for gesture or graphical input, keyboard, mouse, motion input, speech and so forth. An output device 735 may also be one or more of a number of output mechanisms known to those of skill in the art. In some instances, multimodal systems may enable a user to provide multiple types of input to communicate with system 700. Communications interface 740 may generally govern and manage the user input and system output. There is no restriction on operating on any particular hardware arrangement and therefore the basic features here may easily be substituted for improved hardware or firmware arrangements as they are developed” (¶ 76); and/or “The program(s) of the program product define functions of the embodiments (including the methods described herein) and can be contained on a variety of computer-readable storage media. Illustrative computer-readable storage media include, but are not limited to: (i) non-writable storage media (e.g., read-only memory (ROM) devices within a computer, such as CD-ROM disks readably by a CD-ROM drive, flash memory, ROM chips, or any type of solid-state non-volatile memory) on which information is permanently stored; and (ii) writable storage media (e.g., floppy disks within a diskette drive or hard-disk drive or any type of solid state random-access memory) on which alterable information is stored. Such computer-readable storage media, when carrying computer-readable instructions that direct the functions of the disclosed embodiments, are embodiments of the present disclosure” (¶ 120). Such disclosure suggests that components required by the claims are no more than generic components operating in their ordinary capacity.
It is settled law that adding physical elements to an abstract idea will not amount to an “inventive concept" if the physical elements are well-known, routine and conventional elements and they perform their well-known, routine and conventional functions. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, L.L.C. (Fed Cir 2016):
Turning to the second step in our analysis, we find that the claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner into a patent-eligible application of that idea. It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294). We agree with the district court that the claims’ recitation of a “telephone unit,” a “server”, an “image analysis unit,” and a “control unit” fail to add an inventive concept sufficient to bring the abstract idea into the realm of patentability. (Emphasis added by Examiner.)
On the question of preemption, the Federal Circuit has stated in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of DNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
Nor do the dependent claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20 add “significantly more” since they merely add to the claimed concepts relating to fundamental economic principles or practices and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions (particularly, game rules or instructions) under the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The dependent claims failing to place the claimed invention into a practical applicant or additional generic components of the dependent claims failing to amount to “significantly more” for the same reasons noted above.
Consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claim are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAMAR HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-6177. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 5:30pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571) 270-1344. 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.
/TRAMAR HARPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715