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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Applicant's claim for domestic priority benefit of Provisional Application no 63/605013, filed 12/1/23, is acknowledged.
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.
In the instant application, claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A:
However, claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For instance, regarding independent claim(s) 1, 9, 15,
Prong 1 analysis:
The limitations of “a match outcome module to identify a plurality of match outcome results, wherein each match outcome result is indicative of a progression ball tennis match score and a pair of progression ball tennis players from a plurality of progression ball tennis players; a player reliability manager to set a rating value for each player of the plurality of progression ball tennis players to a predetermined initial value; an iterative rating engine to, for each iteration of a plurality of iterations, and for each player of the plurality of progression ball tennis players: (i) determine a progression coefficient based on the rating value of the respective player; (ii) determine a first difference between an expected outcome and an actual outcome for each match of the match outcome results associated with the respective player, wherein the expected outcome is based on the rating values of the pair of players associated with the match; (iii) determine a first weight factor for each match of the match outcome results associated with the respective player; and (iv) update the rating value of the respective player based on the progression coefficient, the first difference, and the first weight factor for each match; and a final rating manager to determine a final rating for each player in response to completion of the plurality of iterations” (claim 1), “identifying, by a computing device, a plurality of match outcome results, wherein each match outcome result is indicative of a progression ball tennis match score and a pair of progression ball tennis players from a plurality of progression ball tennis players; setting, by the computing device, a rating value for each player of the plurality of progression ball tennis players to a predetermined initial value; for each iteration of a plurality of iterations, and for each player of the plurality of progression ball tennis players: determining, by the computing device, a progression coefficient based on the rating value of the respective player; determining, by the computing device, a first difference between an expected outcome and an actual outcome for each match of the match outcome results associated with the respective player, wherein the expected outcome is based on the rating values of the pair of players associated with the match; determining, by the computing device, a first weight factor for each match of the match outcome results associated with the respective player; and updating, by the computing device, the rating value of the respective player based on the progression coefficient, the first difference, and the first weight factor for each match; and determining, by the computing device, a final rating for each player in response to completing the plurality of iterations” (claim 9), “a match outcome manager to identify a plurality of match outcome results, wherein each match outcome result is indicative of a pickleball match score and a pair of pickleball players from a plurality of pickleball players; a player reliability manager to (i) determine whether each player of the plurality of pickleball players is fully reliable; and (ii) set a rating value for each player of the plurality of pickleball players that is not fully reliable to a null value; an iterative rating engine to, for each iteration of a plurality of iterations, and for each player of the plurality of pickleball players: (i) determine a first difference between an expected outcome and an actual outcome for each match of the match outcome results associated with the respective player, wherein the expected outcome is based on the rating values of the pair of players associated with the match; (ii) determine a first weight factor for each match of the match outcome results associated with the respective player; and (iii) update the rating value of the respective player based on the first difference and the first weight factor for each match; and a final rating manager to determine a final rating for each player in response to completing the plurality of iterations” (claim 15), are considered to fall within the mental processes grouping. The recited limitations, as drafted, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, 16-20 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 are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Prong 2 analysis:
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the additional elements “a computing device”, are generically recited computer elements that do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these 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, the above-identified generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer. The claimed elements are recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering and data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Each of the additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, in view of Berkheimer, the recited additional element is considered as conventional activity. For instance, Howell et al. (8548610) teaches the recited additional element (col 9, ln 33-67, col 10, ln 1-36).
In addition, with regards to the present claims, the courts have recognized the computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
For instance, regarding claims 1-20, each claim describes physical or software elements that provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea, which is similar to the conventional activity or as insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting information, based on types of information, for collection, analysis and display in EPG, gathering, receiving and transmitting data in Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs., buySAFE, and performing repetitive calculation in Flook, Bancorp.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 is/are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TAHAI YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1777. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 7am- 3pm PST.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON T YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights