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 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-30 recite an abstract idea of performing a mental process. The claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
More specifically, regarding Step 1, of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2a1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Claims 1-10 recite, a method comprising:
obtaining a set of data relating to a tennis player, the set of data including at least tracking data and historical player data;
determining a current state of an ongoing tennis match based on at least the tracking data;
determining a probability of a player returning a ball to different regions of a court during the ongoing tennis match based on at least the tracking data and the historical player data;
translating each of a set of player statistics included in the historical player data into a player rating, wherein each of the set of player statistics is associated with one of a set of statistical categories;
aggregating player ratings associated with each statistical category into an aggregated category rating for each statistical category;
obtaining a video providing a depiction of the ongoing tennis match;
generating a first overlay illustrating the probabilities of the player returning the ball to the different regions of the court;
generating a second overlay illustrating the aggregated category ratings for each category for the player; and
overlaying at least one of the first overlay and the second overlay over the video.
Claims 11-16 recite a system for of generating overlays over video relating to a tennis match, the 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 set of data relating to a tennis player, the set of data including at least tracking data and historical player data;
translating each of a set of player statistics included in the historical player data into a player rating, wherein each player statistic is associated with one of a set of statistical categories;
aggregating player ratings associated with each statistical category into an aggregated category rating for each statistical category, wherein each aggregated category rating is distributed relative to other ratings generated for other players;
obtaining a video providing a depiction of the tennis match;
generating a first overlay illustrating the aggregated category ratings for each category for the player; and
overlaying the first overlay over the video.
Claims 17-30 recite, A method comprising:
obtaining a video providing a depiction of a tennis match being played on a tennis court;
obtaining a first set of data associated with a first tennis player playing in the tennis match, the first set of data including at least a first score of the tennis match, a first number of shots made in the tennis match, and a first tracking data;
determining, using a first machine learning model and prior to the first tennis player performing a serve using a tennis ball, a first plurality of probabilities based on the first set of data, wherein each probability of the first plurality of probabilities represents a likelihood of the tennis ball landing in a respective region of the tennis court based on the serve;
generating a first overlay depicting the first plurality of probabilities;
overlaying the video with the first overlay;
determining, using a second machine learning model and when the tennis ball bounces in a first region of the tennis court based on the serve, a probability that the bouncing tennis ball will result in a point for the first tennis player based at least in part on the first set of data;
generating a second overlay depicting the probability that the bouncing tennis ball will result in a point for the first tennis player; and
overlaying the video with the second overlay.
The underlined limitations recite an abstract idea of performing a mental process).
Step 2a2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration of whether the claim recites additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application.
An additional element or combination of additional elements that are indicative of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application include:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Additional element or combination of additional elements that are not indicative of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application include:
-Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1-30 not apply a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing.
Claims 1-30 are not directed to an improvement to a function of a computer. There is no improvement to a technical field. In addition, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way.
The additional elements of :obtaining a video providing a depiction of the ongoing tennis match amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The additional elements of, generating overlay(s) and overlaying the video with the overlay(s) amount to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The machine learning models are recited at a high level of generality and therefore acts as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The use of a machine learning model generally ties the abstract idea to a computer embodiment.
For the reasons discussed above, the additional elements identified above considered alone and in combination fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception.
Claims 1-30 incorporate the additional element of obtaining a set of data and obtaining a video. The steps of receiving data and communicating, transmitting data over a network is well known, routine and conventional. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Claims 1-30 incorporate the additional element of displaying an overlay. The step of displaying information is well known, routine and conventional. The Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
In addition, Khazanov (US 2017/0368439) discloses overlaying data on a video is known in the art (paragraph 145).
Claims 11-16 recite a processor and memory having instructions to perform the abstract idea. The use of a processor and a memory to perform calculations is well known, routine and conventional. Applicant’s specification may processor may include general purpose processor.
Claims 17-30 recite the additional element of machine learning model(s) to make determinations for sports is known in the art. Lee (US 2019/0392729) discloses is known in the art to use machine learning methods to make determinations and calculations for sports.
The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-10, 11-16, 18-30 further recite an abstract idea of performing a mental process. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified abstract idea. Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The dependent clams merely include limitations that further define the abstract idea and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract. The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
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.
Claims 11, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz (US 2020/0234543) in view Gupta (US 2021/0312767) and Khazanov (US 2017/0368439).
Claim 11. Schwartz discloses a system (Fig. 1) for of generating overlays over video relating to a tennis match (system can be used for a tennis game, paragraph 170), the system comprising:
a processor (100 in Fig. 1); and a memory having programming instructions stored thereon (paragraphs 16, 41), which, when executed by the processor, performs one or more operations comprising:
obtaining a set of data relating to a tennis player, the set of data including at least tracking data (paragraphs 4, 18, 20) and historical player data (paragraphs 33, 35, 94);
obtaining a video providing a depiction of the tennis match (paragraphs 22, 121, 161, 163).
Schwartz discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach:
translating each of a set of player statistics included in the historical player data into a player rating, wherein each player statistic is associated with one of a set of statistical categories
aggregating player ratings associated with each statistical category into an aggregated category rating for each statistical category, wherein each aggregated category rating is distributed relative to other ratings generated for other players;
generating a first overlay illustrating the aggregated category ratings for each category for the player; and
overlaying the first overlay over the video.
Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art as discussed below.
In an analogous art to systems for capturing and evaluating player data, Gupta discloses a system in which player historical player data and/or statistical data is used to perform analytics (paragraphs 26-29) and translated into a player rating (skill levels or ratings, paragraph 26, 32-33). The player statistics are associated with one of a set of statistical categories (sub task skill levels or ratings; paragraphs 26, 33-34, ). The system aggregates player ratings associated with each statistical category into an aggregated category rating for each statistical category (one or more general levels or ratings/ weighted metrics paragraphs 26, 41), wherein each aggregated category rating is distributed relative to other ratings generated for other players (Skill rating is based on outcome such as winning/losing and therefore relative to other players; paragraph 28). Gupta discloses the system of rating skills can be applied to different sports (paragraphs 34) including (tennis paragraph 274). The skill rating is used to determine the odds and awards of the of the game (abstract , paragraphs 21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Schwartz’s invention and use player historical statistics to rate players as claimed in order to provide the predictable result of rating players for determining odds and awards.
In an analogous art to sporting systems, Khazanov discloses a system of tracking and predicting position of player and the ball in the tennis game. Khazanov discloses generating a first overlay illustrating game data and of a player and overlaying the first overlay over the video (paragraph 45). This allows users to view the video stream and the data related to the video stream simultaneously. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Schwartz’s invention and overlay the video stream with a generated overlay of the player data as claimed in order to provide the predictable result of allowing users to view the video stream and the data related to the video stream simultaneously.
Claim 14. Schwartz in view Gupta and Khazanov discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise: determining a probability of each player winning an upcoming point in the tennis match (Schwartz discloses generate probability of the future events, paragraph 164-169. When using Schwartz’s system for a tennis game, the probability a player scoring/winning would be generated accordingly.).; generating a third overlay illustrating the determined probability of each player winning the upcoming point; and overlaying the third overlay over the video (As indicated above, Khazanov discloses overlaying data on the video stream).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jasson H Yoo whose telephone number is (571)272-5563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/JASSON H YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715