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 Objections
Claims 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 recites a list of functions of the control circuitry using the base verb form (“analyze”, “determine”, “identify”, “determine”, “calculate”) but recites the final function as “updating a user interface”. For grammatical consistency, the Examiner suggests “update an user interface”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 – 7 and 16 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the particular distance threshold" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the second shape analysis" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the particular distance threshold" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the second shape analysis" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
All dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claim(s) from which they depend and are similarly rejected for the same reason.
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.
Claims 1 – 20 are all within at least one of the four categories of invention, and have been analyzed to determine whether they are directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of claims 1 – 20 recites at least one step or instruction for determine locations of players on a field to create a game strategy, which is grouped as a mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. The claimed limitations involve concepts performed in the human mind, namely observation, evaluation and judgement, which are mental processes and managing personal behavior and following rules or instructions, which are methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of Claims 1 – 20 recites an abstract idea.
Independent Claim 1 recites:
A method comprising:
analyzing, by a first computing device, a video of a sports event that includes a plurality of players from a first team and a second team on a field of play;
determining, based on the analysis, whether the first team is currently playing offense or defense;
identifying a formation based on determining whether the first team is currently playing offense or defense, wherein the identified formation is associated with locations of players from the first team in one or more zones of the field of play;
determining, based on monitoring a first player from the first team, a current location of the first player within the one or more zones of the field of play;
calculating a vector for the first player, wherein the calculated vector represents a distance from the current location of the first player to a particular location of the first player associated with the identified formation; and
updating a user interface based on the calculated vector.
Accordingly, as indicated above in bold, the above-identified claim and claim 12 (system) recites an abstract idea Further, dependent Claims 2 – 11 and 13 – 20 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1 and 12 (and their respective dependent Claims 2 – 11 and 13 – 20) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1 and 12), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: a first computing device, a video, a user interface, control circuitry as recited in independent Claims 1 and 12 and its dependent claims are generically recited computer elements which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Furthermore, user interface and the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer/computing device. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 12 (and their respective dependent Claims 2 – 11 and 13 – 20) are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application
under 2019 PEG because the claimed system merely implements the above-identified abstract
idea (e.g., mental process) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g.
a first computing device, a video, a user interface, control circuitry as recited in independent claims 1 and 12). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer/computing device.
Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 12 (and their respective dependent Claims 2 – 11 and 13 – 20) are not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of the Claims 1 – 20 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons. These claims require the additional elements of: a first computing device, a video, a user interface, control circuitry as recited in the independent claims.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components
which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic
functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as
well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner
(e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev.
Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Like SAP America vs InvestPic, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1 – 20 amounts to
mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or
other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or
transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the
fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does
not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing
technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837
F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft
Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a
technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification
for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or
upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide
sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention
as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of
how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the
prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution
that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d
1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide
sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any
technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, Claims 1 – 20 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain method of organizing human activity) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 1 – 20 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements
do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified
additional elements in independent Claims 1 and 12 (and their dependent claims) do not add
significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular
technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other
additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional
elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these
above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed
functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of
generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept
sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the
above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful
limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea
such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1 – 20 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a
technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the claims 1 – 20 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea
itself.
Accordingly, claims 1 – 20 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as
being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme
Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 – 3, 6, 9, 10, 12 – 14, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DeAngelis et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0320660 A1).
As per claim 1, DeAngelis et al. discloses a method comprising: analyzing, by a first computing device, a video of a sports event that includes a plurality of players from a first team and a second team on a field of play (a system that receives a video feed from one or more video cameras and other event data for a sports event (e.g., American football game with all 22 players of two teams on the field) and automatically generates event characterization information including identification of formations and/or plays, see Fig. 1 – 2 and 8 and [0028] and [0031]); determining, based on the analysis, whether the first team is currently playing offense or defense (detect the beginning of an offensive player from the aggregate-motion sequence, see Fig. 3 and [0038] – [0040]); identifying a formation based on determining whether the first team is currently playing offense or defense, wherein the identified formation is associated with locations of players from the first team in one or more zones of the field of play (compare the determined static formation (Fig.5C:555) against a library of standard formations to identify a best case match standard formation (553), see Fig. 5B – C and [0070] – [0077]); determining, based on monitoring a first player from the first team, a current location of the first player within the one or more zones of the field of play (acquire player location data from tracking system and determines the current location of an individual player, see Fig. 5B – C and [0033], [0062] and [0071]); calculating a vector for the first player, wherein the calculated vector represents a
distance from the current location of the first player to a particular location of the first player
associated with the identified formation (the deviation between the determined static formation 555 and the stand formation 553, see Fig. 5B-C, for example, a wide receiver lines up 10 yards away from the respective tackle (as indicated by marker 554), as opposed to 5 yards (as indicated by marker 552), per the standard library formation shown in FIG. 5C and [0073] and [0120]) and
updating a user interface based on the calculated vector (see 6B – 6D).
As per claim 2, DeAngelis et al. discloses determining, based on the calculated vector, that the distance from the current location of the first player to the particular location of the first player exceeds a distance threshold (see Fig. 5D and [0074] – [0091]); and in response to determining that the distance from the current location of the first player to the particular location of the first player exceeds the distance threshold, executing an action
to perform visually distinguishing the first player on a user interface of the second
computing device from other players from the first team (selected players 655 may be highlighted, as indicated by an optionally blinking `dot` 656, or other part of the player, such as the player's head or helmet, see [0162]).
As per claim 3, DeAngelis et al. discloses determining, based on the calculated vector, that the distance from the current location of the first player to the particular location of the first player is within a distance threshold and in response to determining that the distance from the current location of the first player to the particular location of the first player is within the distance threshold, executing an action to perform visually distinguishing the first player on the user interface of the second computing device from other players from the first team (highlighting “open” players by changing their color on a graphic, see Fig. 7:715 and Fig. 6B-6D).
As per claim 6, DeAngelis et al. discloses monitoring movement of the players from the first team and determining, based on the monitoring, that the players from the first team have moved from a previous location to a second location on the field of play (determining each participant’s path defining a dynamic play execution, see Fig. 5E and [0109]-[0110]); performing a shape analysis based on the determined second location of the players from the first team (re-establishing and comparing the formation execution defined by the players’ positions, see Fig. 5D and [0089] – [0091]); and updating a formation strategy on the user interface of a second computing device to reflect results from the second shape analysis (updating the report/recommendation provided to the coaching staff and the graphic display, see Fig. 5B and [0070] – [0078]).
As per claim 9, DeAngelis et al. discloses generating a first matrix of coordinates (standard formations) based on identified locations of the players from the first team and generating a second matrix of coordinates based on current locations of the players
from the first team (the determined static formation versus the standard formation, see Fig. 5C:553) and calculating distance vectors for each player from the first team by comparing the
coordinates of the first matrix with the coordinates of the second matrix (identifying the per-player deviations between the determined formation and the standard formation, see [0090] – [0095]).
As per claim 10, DeAngelis et al. discloses receiving a plurality of videos captured at different angles of the sports event (multiple video camera 117, sideline, end zone and press-box see Fig. 8); and selecting a video, from the plurality of videos, that captures a desired zone, from the one or more zones of the field of play, wherein the desired zone is selected based on a player
from the first team that is to be monitored being present in the desired zone (The system may automatically direct a robotic camera 117 to capture or `cover` a target situation such as the beginning of a play, or when certain players are positioned within a predetermined distance of each other. For example, a camera may be automatically directed to cover an area of interest such as the line of scrimmage, a huddle, or a particular participant or participants in response to, or in anticipation of, a target situation, e.g., camera 117 may be directed to cover a quarterback upon detection of the beginning of a play. This procedure may help ensure that play is not missed due to other action on the field, see [0174]).
As per claims 12 – 14, 17 and 19, the instant claims are a system in which corresponds to the method of claims 1 – 3, 6 and 10. Therefore, it is rejected for the reasons set forth above.
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 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeAngelis et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0320660 A1) in view of Huke et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0241565 A1).
As per claim 11, DeAngelis et al. does not expressly disclose providing a platform for betting on one or more of performance of a player from the first or second team, performance of a coach associated with the first or second team, or formations played by the first or second team.
Huke et al. teaches wager odds on player sensor data, wherein allows players to predict and wager on players actions during the course of a play that has yet to occur by collecting sensor data on the players to create a historical database. Utilizing an algorithm, the wagering odds may be provided to the users of the platform to place wagers on the upcoming play betting on the player's sensor data that is collected during the play. The algorithm may determine the probability of the outcome of the player's sensor data and these probabilities of the outcome allow users to determine if the player will exceed or not reach the potential outcome (see abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a betting platform of Huke et al. into the sports-event analysis system of DeAngelis et al. in order to allow the fans to engage and wager on the game with the analyzed sporting event data.
As per claim 20, the instant claim is a system in which corresponds to the method of claim 11. Therefore, it is rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Examiner’s Note
DeAngelis et al. in view of Huke et al. does not expressly teach or suggest determining, based on the calculated vector, that the distance from the current location of the first player to the particular location of the first player exceeds a distance threshold; determining whether an exception applies to the first player, based on a current circumstance on the field of play, that permits the first player to exceed the distance threshold; and in response to determining that the exception applies to the first player, associating positive score or ratings for the first player and in response to determining that the exception does not apply to the first player, associating negative score or ratings for the first player (claims 4 and 15); determining the identified formation based on the shape analysis; and displaying the identified formation on the user interface, wherein the displaying comprises outlining the identified formation (claim 7); displaying a notification on the user interface, wherein the notification includes a recommendation to substitute the first player with another player from the first team, wherein the recommendation to substitute is based on the first player not following the identified formation (claim 8 and 18).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANKIT B DOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7863. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri. ~8:30 - ~5:30.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
/ANKIT B DOSHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights