Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This Final Office action is in response to the application filed on May 12th, 2024 and in response to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed on November 19th, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Change in Examiner
3. Rahul Sharma is no longer continuing prosecution on application number 18/661,693. It has been transferred to Examiner Jessica Lemieux.
Priority
4. Application 18/661,693 was filed on May 12th, 2024 has a provisional application 63/466,252 filed on May 13th, 2023.
Examiner Request
5. The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or §112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant argues that the amended claims do not fall within the grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Applicant further argues that the Examiner failed to even mention any such subgrouping or give an explanation as to how each of these limitations falls within this grouping. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite evaluating athlete performance information, updating athlete recruiting profiles based on the evaluated information, and presenting the updated recruiting information for player evaluation and recruiting purposes. Such activities constitute commercial interactions relating to athletic recruiting and player evaluation which falls within the grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” which is a subgrouping of abstract ideas. Examiner notes that this was also noted in the previous office action which specified why the claims fall within the grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” which is a subgrouping of abstract ideas, (see page 3, first paragraph).
7. Applicant argues that the amended claims do not fall within the grouping of “mental processes” because the claim limitations are not related to “observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that determining event statistics data, evaluating athlete performance information, updating athlete profile data based on the evaluation, and presenting updated athlete profiles are observations, evaluations, and judgements that can practically be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper, even if the claims recite generic computer implementation.
8. Applicant argues that the “recruitment platform, event tracking data, updating athlete profile data, generating athlete profile visualization data, and generating and displaying one or more updated athlete profile interfaces is clearly the application of and/or the use of any alleged abstract idea of the claims in a meaningful way beyond the generally linking to a particular technological environment.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended limitations do not improve the functioning of the recruitment platform, computer, network, or display technology itself. Rather, the additional elements merely use generic computer components as tools to collect, evaluate, organize, update, and present athlete performance and recruiting information. Generating updated athlete profile interfaces incorporating event statistics data constitutes the presentation of information for recruiting analysis and review, an alleged improvement to the abstract idea utilizing generic computing components, rather than an improvement to computer functionality or another technology.
9. Applicant argues that the amended claims include a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application. The rejection does not assert that the claimed additional elements are well understood, routine, and conventional, and therefore the argument is moot. Rather, in step 2B, the rejection asserts that the additional elements, both individually and in combination, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
10. Applicant argues that Ricciardi fails to teach, disclose, or suggest “generating by the recruitment platform athlete profile visualization data for the one or more athletes based on the updated athlete profile data, wherein the athlete profile visualization data is configured for use in generating one or more updated athlete profile interfaces for the one or more athletes, wherein the one or more updated athlete profile interfaces incorporate at least a portion of the even statistics data.” Examiner notes that these arguments are made with respect to the amended claims. Examiner disagrees with the applicant’s conclusion that the pending claims as amended are in condition for allowance, as the amended claims have been considered but applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
11. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception, in this case the exception is an abstract idea (see MPEP 2016.03).
Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15
Step 2A – Prong One:
The limitations of these claims recite acquiring the following:
Determine event statistics data for the athletics competition (i.e., collecting and evaluating athlete performance information and statistics)
Update the athlete profile data (i.e., organizing athlete profile information for recruiting and player evaluation purposes)
Generating one or more updated profiles incorporating at least a portion of the event statistics data (i.e., presenting the evaluated athlete information for recruiting analysis and review)
These limitations collectively recite evaluating athlete performance information and organizing and presenting athlete recruiting information for player evaluation and recruiting purposes, which constitute certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial interactions relating to athletic recruiting and player evaluation. Additionally, the limitations recite a mental process on a generic computer or in a computer environment (see MPEP 2016.04(a)(2))because the collecting, evaluation, organization and presentation of athlete performance information are observations and evaluations that can practically be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
The scope of the independent claim limitations incorporate the following additional elements:
One or more processors, a memory compromising a plurality of program instructions, a computing device, and a recruitment platform
Receiving coach profile data and athlete profile data, generating athlete profile visualization data, generating updated athlete profile interfaces incorporating event statistics data, and transmitting the athlete profile visualization data for display
These additional elements listed above, or combination of these elements, amount to nothing more than simply reciting the abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it’, MPEP 2106.05(f). The system elements, one or more processors, a memory compromising a plurality of program instructions, a computing device, and a recruitment platform, to implement the abstract idea amount to mere instructions to apply it using generic computer components. Further additional elements directed to receiving profile data, generating athlete profile visualization data, generating updated athlete profile interfaces incorporating event statistics data, and transmitting the visualization data for display are recited at a high level of generality amount to nothing more than instructions to apply the abstract idea without any improvement to technology, technical field, or to the functioning of the computer itself.
Therefore, the additional elements, whether evaluated individually or in combination, fail to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the combination of additional elements is evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea of determining the event statistics and updating profile data. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 merely further narrow the same abstract idea of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 and therefore do not change the analysis–
Claims 2, 9 and 16 merely further define the abstract idea to include profiles associated with one or more athletes. Claims 2, 9 and 16 recites the additional elements of publicly accessible webpages. This additional element is again recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to applying the abstract idea using generic computer components. This additional element, whether considered individually or in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these additional elements do not add significantly more to apply the abstract idea.
Claims 3 and 10 further recite the additional element by further defining tracking data to comprise a log of events and that the events compromise a statistical events during an athletic competition. This additional element, whether considered individually or in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these additional elements do not add significantly more to apply the abstract idea.
Claims 4, and 11 further recite the abstract idea of providing a log of events. This is a function that an administrator who tabulates player information. The claim limitations are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 5, 12 and 18 recites the additional elements of an updated athlete profile interface. This additional element is again recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to applying the abstract idea using generic computer components. This additional element, whether considered individually or in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these additional elements do not add significantly more to apply the abstract idea.
Claims 6, 13 and 19 recite the additional element by further defining an athlete’s statistics to compromise a one or more statistics. This additional element, whether considered individually or in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these additional elements do not add significantly more to apply the abstract idea.
Claims 7, 14 and 20 further recite the additional element of receiving coach profile data and tracking data. This additional element, whether considered individually or in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these additional elements do not add significantly more to apply the abstract idea.
Claim 17 further recite the abstract idea of providing a log of events. This is a function that an administrator who tabulates player information. The claim limitations are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 17 further recite the additional element by further defining tracking data to comprise a log of events and that the events compromise a statistical events during an athletic competition. This additional element, whether considered individually or in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these additional elements do not add significantly more to apply the abstract idea.
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.
12. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricciardi et al, US Patent Application Publication US 2018/0301169 A1, herein referred to as “Ricciardi” in view of US Patent Application Publication US 2008/0320547 A1, herein referred to as “Lupoi.”
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15, Ricciardi teaches the following limitations:
receiving, by a recruitment platform, coach profile data from a sports coach associated with one or more athletes, wherein the coach profile data corresponds to the sports coach
(¶0249 and Fig. 40 – the player tracking module enables a coach, or other user, to use tracking data to evaluate the performance of a player, or multiple players)
receiving, by the recruitment platform, athlete profile data from the one or more athletes, wherein the athlete profile data corresponds to the one or more athletes
(¶0251 and Fig. 40 – a coach has the ability to include player specific data, like height, weight, etc. for recruitment purposes)
receiving, by the recruitment platform, event tracking data from a statistician for an athletics competition associated with the sports coach and the one or more athletes, wherein the event tracking data corresponds to events that occur during the athletics competition
(¶0251 and Fig. 40 – the player modeling module, using information from the player tracking module and action statistical module, allows a user to track a players performance over past games)
determining, by the recruitment platform, event statistics data for the athletics competition based on the event tracking data, wherein the event statistics data for a respective athlete corresponds to one or more statistics associated with the respective athlete during the athletics competition
(¶0248 and Fig. 40 – the action statistical module is configured to track sport-specific actions, whether through motion detection or user input, and generate statistics based upon the actions)
updating, by the recruitment platform, the athlete profile data for the one or more athletes based on the event statistics data
(¶0250 and Fig. 40 – a user may use statistical information and/or specific tracking data to determine how well the player performs)
generating, by the recruitment platform, athlete profile visualization data for the one or more athletes based on the updated athlete profile data, wherein the athlete profile visualization data is configured for use in generating one or more […] athlete profile interfaces for the one or more athletes, […]
(¶0251 and Fig. 21A & 22A –athlete/player specific interfaces presenting player information and associated athletic content)
transmitting, by the recruitment platform, the athlete profile visualization data to the computing device for displaying the one or more […] athlete profile interfaces
(¶0203 and Fig. 31-37)
Ricciardi teaches generating and displaying interfaces presenting athlete/player information and statistics used for player evaluation and recruiting purposes. However Ricciardi does not specifically teach generating one or more updated athlete profile interfaces for the one or more athletes, wherein the one or more updated athlete profile interfaces incorporate at least a portion of the event statistics data for display.
However, Lupoi, which is analogous art, discloses
generating one or more updated athlete profile interfaces for the one or more athletes, wherein the one or more updated athlete profile interfaces incorporate at least a portion of the event statistics data and displaying the one or more updated athlete profile interfaces
(¶0072-0079, 0081-0090, 0094, and 0251 and Fig. 2 – updating athlete profile information/statistics and presenting the updated information through athlete recruiting interfaces)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ricciardi’s athlete/player profile interfaces to dynamically incorporate updated athlete statistical information for display as taught by Lupoi, because Lupoi teaches providing recruiting organizations with updated athlete performance information to facilitate athlete evaluation and recruiting decisions (¶0081-0082).
Regarding Claims 2, 9, and 16, the combination of Ricciardi and Lupoi teaches the limitations above, Ricciardi also teaches the following limitation:
the one or more […] athlete profile interfaces correspond to one or more publicly accessible webpages for one or more athlete profiles, wherein the one or more athlete profiles are associated with the one or more athletes
(¶0203-0205 and Fig. 31-37)
Ricciardi teaches interfaces publicly accessible athlete/player interfaces presenting athlete/player information and statistics used for player evaluation and recruiting purposes. However Ricciardi does not specifically teach updated athlete profile interfaces.
However, Lupoi, discloses
updated athlete profile interfaces
(¶0072-0079, 0081-0090, 0094, and 0251 and Fig. 2 – updating athlete profile information/statistics and presenting the updated information through athlete recruiting interfaces)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ricciardi’s athlete/player profile interfaces to dynamically incorporate updated athlete statistical information for display as taught by Lupoi, because Lupoi teaches providing recruiting organizations with updated athlete performance information to facilitate athlete evaluation and recruiting decisions (¶0081-0082).
Regarding Claims 3 and 10, the combination of Ricciardi and Lupoi teaches the limitations above, Ricciardi also teaches the following limitation:
wherein the tracking data comprises a log of the events that occur during the athletics competition
(¶0251 and Fig. 40)
wherein the events comprise statistical events that occur during the athletics competition
(¶0251 and Fig. 40)
Regarding Claims 4, and 11, the combination of Ricciardi and Lupoi teaches the limitations above, Ricciardi also teaches the following limitation:
wherein the log of the events is provided by the statistician in real-time or near real-time
(¶0010 and 0248 – the action statistical module tracks sporting actions and a real-time process may be used to process captured video content during the sporting event)
Regarding Claims 5, 12 and 18, the combination of Ricciardi and Lupoi teaches the limitations above, Ricciardi also teaches the following limitation player modeling and action statistical modules generate player-specific statistics and tracking information associated with respective players (¶0248 and 0251 and Fig. 40). Ricciardi does not specifically teach a respective updated athlete profile interface for the respective athlete incorporates the event statistics data for the respective athlete.
However, Lupoi, discloses:
a respective updated athlete profile interface for the respective athlete incorporates the event statistics data for the respective athlete
(¶0081-0090, 0094 and Fig. 2)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ricciardi’s athlete/player profile interfaces to include a respective updated athlete profile interface for the respective athlete incorporates the event statistics data for the respective athlete as taught by Lupoi, because Lupoi teaches providing recruiting organizations with updated athlete performance information to facilitate athlete evaluation and recruiting decisions (¶0081-0082).
Regarding Claims 6, 13, and 19, the combination of Ricciardi and Lupoi teaches the limitations above, Ricciardi also teaches the following limitation:
wherein the one or more statistics associated with the respective athlete during the athletics competition comprises one or more statistics accumulated by the respective athlete during the athletics competition
(¶0251 and Fig 40 – the player modeling module enables a user to track and accumulate player performance over past games, or seasons)
Regarding Claims 7, 14, and 20, the combination of Ricciardi and Lupoi teaches the limitations above, Ricciardi also teaches the following limitation:
wherein the coach profile data is received from the sports coach using a first application associated with the recruiting platform, wherein the event tracking data is received from the statistician using a second application, and wherein the first application and the second application are different
(¶00248 and 251 and Fig. 40 – the player modeling module allows a coach, as well as a player or other user, to include player specific data to track performance)
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Ricciardi and Lupoi teaches the limitations above, Ricciardi also teaches the following limitation:
wherein the tracking data comprises a log of the events that occur during the athletics competition, and
(¶0251 and Fig. 40)
wherein the log of the events is provided by the statistician in real-time or near real-time
(¶0079 – the app enables the user to create or select the name of a sporting event at a particular geographic location)
Conclusion
13. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA LEMIEUX whose telephone number is (571)270-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM.
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, TARIQ HAFIZ can be reached at (571) 272-5350. 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.
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights