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
PATH TO ALLOWANCE
Examiner respectfully suggests Applicant telephone Examiner Adams (571-270-3688) prior to filing a response to the instant office action to discuss claim amendments to place this application in a Condition for Allowance. Possible considerations for allowance would be to incorporate some of the subject matter deemed allowable in the instant office action as well as cure deficiencies under 35 U.S.C. section 101.
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 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention. Said claims are drawn to ‘a computing system’ whereby said claims and specification are silent as to the hardware/software configuration of the claimed system. As such, the system is capable of reading on software and therefore does not fall into any statutory class of invention. Computer programs claimed as computer listings per se, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs, are not physical “things.” They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not “acts” to be performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer which permit the computer program’s functionality to be realized. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-2, 10-11, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JOO et al (US Pub. No.: 20190022487) in view of HOFFBERG et al. (US Pub. No.: 2007-0061735).
As per Claim 1 JOO discloses A computer-implemented method comprising (Figs. 1-8 [Abstract]):
processing data describing a sporting event in order to (Figs. 1-8 motion model graph [Abstract] [0010-0012] [0064-0065] [0118]):
evaluate a model, each receiving as input at least part of the processed data (Figs. 1-8 motion model input and output of the traveling item for the motion model – sporting item [0086-0090] [0118] [0121-0124]), or part of an output of other models in the collection of models (either or), or a combination thereof (either or);
each entry including data at least indicative of a type of gameplay event in terms of criteria defined (Figs. 1-8 data storage 320 - gameplay description as the motion model event item type description [Abstract] [0014] [0037-0040] [0086-0090] [0118] [0121-0124]); the event record including data at least indicative of the type of gameplay event represented (Figs. 1-8 gameplay sport description and event type [0014] [0037-0040] [0086-0090] [0118] [0121-0124])
JOO does not disclose but HOFFBERG discloses evaluate a collection of models (Figs. 1-7, 11-12, 22-23 templates and models for identification [0400-0402]); compare outputs of the models to at least one entry in an event library (Figs. 1-7, 11-12, 27-29 pattern templates database libraries [0423-0424, 0552, 0721] compared entry input features/patterns [0579, 0582] [0591, 0596]), each entry in terms of criteria defined over output values of at least part of the collection of models (Figs. 1-7, 11-12, 22-23 outcome [0400-0402] [0486-0487] [0507]); and output an event record whenever the criteria of an entry in the event library are satisfied by the outputs of the models, the event record represented by the corresponding entry in the event library (Figs. 1-7, 11-12, 22-23, 27-29 [0163-0165] [0438, 0442] event databases - library [0423-0424] [0552, 0721]; output and storing upon a compared match of event record data features/patterns of event related [0507] [0579, 0582] [0591, 0596])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include evaluate a collection of models; compare outputs of the models to at least one entry in an event library, each entry in terms of criteria defined over output values of at least part of the collection of models; and output an event record whenever the criteria of an entry in the event library are satisfied by the outputs of the models, the event record represented by the corresponding entry in the event library as taught by HOFFBERG into the system of JOO because of the benefit taught by HOFFBERG to disclose model collections with event pattern recognition and analysis as well as event pattern libraries as advancements in event pattern data processing whereby JOO would benefit from the event pattern advancements as said system is directed to event data processing and automated analysis for event related data and would benefit from pattern analysis that could expand upon the system predictability and output achievements.
As per Claim 2 JOO discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein
JOO does not disclose but HOFFBERG discloses the criteria of one or more entries in the event library are represented in terms of a temporal sequence of sub-criteria (Figs. 26-30 event sub-criteria temporal domain coded data for the sequence of images [0752-0753] [0755-0757]), and the method additionally comprising evaluating the sub-criteria (Figs. 26-30 compare with historical data, stored entries [0752-0753] [0755-0757]) and generating an event record for the entry in the event library in case that all sub-the criteria of each element in the sequence are matched in the appropriate sequence (Figs. 26-30 output event record for entry for best correlation [0752-0753] [0755-0757]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 1 applies equally to Claim 2).
As per Claim 10 JOO discloses A computing system, comprising (Figs. 1-8 [0035] [0040-0043]): at least one processor, and at least one memory (Figs. 1-8 [0010] [0035] [0040-0043]); the at least one memory comprising (Figs. 1-8 [0010] [0035] [0040-0043]): each entry including data at least indicative of a type of gameplay event in terms of criteria defined (See said analysis for Claim 1), and instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing system to at least perform the following (Figs. 1-8 [0010] [0035] [0040-0043]):
acquiring data, by digital transfer (either or) or sensors (Fig. 2 sensing device 200 [0035-0037]), describing a sporting event (Figs. 1-8 sporting event baseball [Abstract] [0010-0012] [0064-0065] [0118]);
evaluating a model, each receiving as input at least part of the acquired data, or part of an output of other models in the collection, or a combination of both (See said analysis for Claim 1); each entry including data at least indicative of a type of gameplay event in terms of criteria defined (See said analysis for Claim 1); the event record including data at least indicative of the type of gameplay event represented (See said analysis for Claim 1)
JOO does not disclose but HOFFBERG discloses a collection of models (See said analysis for Claim 1), an event library (event databases, library [0423-0424] [0552, 0721]); each entry in terms of criteria defined over output values of at least part of the collection of models (See said analysis for Claim 1); evaluating a collection of models (See said analysis for Claim 1) comparing outputs of the models to at least one entry in an event library (See said analysis for Claim 1), each entry in terms of criteria defined over output values of at least part of the collection of models (See said analysis for Claim 1); and outputting an event record whenever the criteria of an entry in the event library are satisfied by the outputs of the models (See said analysis for Claim 1), the event record represented by the corresponding entry in the event library (See said analysis for Claim 1) (The motivation that applied in Claim 1 applies equally to Claim 10)
As per Claim 11 JOO discloses The computing system of claim 10, and the processing instructions further cause the computing system to at least perform wherein (See said analysis for Claim 10)
JOO does not disclose but HOFFBERG discloses the criteria of one or more entries in the event library are represented in terms of a temporal sequence of sub-criteria (See said analysis for Claim 2); evaluation of the sub-criteria (See said analysis for Claim 2) and generation of an event record for the entry in the event library in case that all sub-the criteria of each element in the sequence are matched in the appropriate sequence (See said analysis for Claim 2).
As per Claim 19 JOO discloses A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of at least one computing device (Figs. 1-8 [0010] [0035]), cause the at least one processor to process data describing a sporting event in order to (Figs. 1-8 motion model graph [Abstract] [0010-0012] [0064-0065] [0118]): evaluate a model, each receiving as input at least part of the processed data (See said analysis for Claim 1) each receiving as input at least part of the processed data, or part of an output of other models in the collection of models, or a combination thereof (See said analysis for Claim 1); each entry including data at least indicative of a type of gameplay event in terms of criteria defined (See said analysis for Claim 1); the event record including data at least indicative of the type of gameplay event represented (See said analysis for Claim 1)
JOO does not disclose but HOFFBERG discloses evaluate a collection of models (See said analysis for Claim 1) compare outputs of the models to at least one entry in an event library (See said analysis for Claim 1), each entry in terms of criteria defined over output values of at least part of the collection of models (See said analysis for Claim 1); and output an event record whenever the criteria of an entry in the event library are satisfied by the outputs of the models (See said analysis for Claim 1), the event record represented by the corresponding entry in the event library (See said analysis for Claim 1).
As per Claim 20 JOO discloses The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19, and the instructions further cause the processor to wherein (See said analysis for Claim 19)
JOO does not disclose but HOFFBERG discloses the criteria of one or more entries in the event library are represented in terms of a temporal sequence of sub-criteria (See said analysis for Claim 2), evaluate the sub-criteria (See said analysis for Claim 2) and generate an event record for the entry in the event library in case that all sub-the criteria of each element in the sequence are matched in the appropriate sequence (See said analysis for Claim 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
Claims 3-9, 12-18 is/are objected to as being dependent upon the rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and but for the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C section 101.
Claim 3-9, 12-18 is/are allowed, but for the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C section 101. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As per Claim 3 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein one or more entries in the event library that defines a sequence of sub-criteria additionally defines constraints on a time window during which its temporal sequence can occur, in terms of minimum durations or maximum durations or a combination thereof, and the method additionally comprising evaluating the duration of any matched temporal sequence of sub-criteria, and outputting an event record in case the time-window constraints are met" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 4 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein each entry in the event library additionally includes data at least indicative of one or more sets of criteria for assigning roles to players involved in the gameplay event; the method additionally comprising evaluating the one or more sets of criteria for each event record; and in case the criteria are satisfied by one or more players, the event record additionally includes data at least indicative of the player or players performing the corresponding role" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 5 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein each entry in the event library additionally includes data at least indicative of a mapping of player roles to visual elements, and the method additionally comprising generating a video at least including the visual elements corresponding to at least one event record" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 6 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein each entry in the event library additionally includes data at least indicative of one or more sets of criteria for assigning roles to players involved in the gameplay event; the method additionally comprising evaluating the one or more sets of criteria for each event record; and in case the criteria are satisfied by one or more players, the event record additionally includes data at least indicative of the player or players performing the corresponding role" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 7 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein each entry in the event library additionally includes data at least indicative of a mapping of player roles to visual elements, and the method additionally comprises generating a video at least including the visual elements corresponding to at least one event record" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 8 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein each entry in the event library additionally includes data at least indicative of one or more sets of criteria for assigning roles to players involved in the gameplay event; the method additionally comprising evaluating the one or more sets of criteria for each event record; and in case the criteria are satisfied by one or more players, the event record additionally includes data at least indicative of the player or players performing the corresponding role" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 9 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein each entry in the event library additionally includes data at least indicative of a mapping of player roles to visual elements, and the method additionally comprising generating a video at least including the visual elements corresponding to at least one event record" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 12 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The computing system of claim 11, wherein one or more entries in the event library that defines a sequence of sub-criteria additionally defines constraints on a time window during which its temporal sequence can occur, in terms of minimum and/or maximum durations, and the processing instructions further cause the computing system to at least perform: evaluation of the duration of any matched temporal sequence of sub-criteria, and output of an event record in case the time-window constraints are met" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 13 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The computing system of claim 10, wherein each entry in the event library additionally includes data at least indicative of one or more sets of criteria for assigning roles to players involved in the gameplay event; the instructions further cause the computing system to at least perform: evaluation of the one or more sets of criteria for each event record, and in case the criteria are satisfied by one or more players, include in the event record data at least indicative of the player or players performing the corresponding role" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 14 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The computing system of claim 13, wherein each entry in the event library additionally includes data at least indicative of a mapping of player roles to visual elements, and the instructions further cause the computing system to at least perform: generation of a video at least including the visual elements corresponding to at least one event record" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 15 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The computing system of claim 11, wherein each entry in the event library additionally includes data at least indicative of one or more sets of criteria for assigning roles to players involved in the gameplay event; the instructions further cause the computing system to at least perform: evaluation of the one or more sets of criteria for each event record, and in case the criteria are satisfied by one or more players, include in the event record data at least indicative of the player or players performing the corresponding role" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 16 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The computing system of claim 15, wherein each entry in the event library additionally includes data at least indicative of a mapping of player roles to visual elements, and the instructions further cause the computing system to at least perform: generation of a video at least including the visual elements corresponding to at least one event record" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 17 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The computing system of claim 12, wherein each entry in the event library additionally includes data at least indicative of one or more sets of criteria for assigning roles to players involved in the gameplay event; the instructions further cause the computing system to at least perform: evaluation of the one or more sets of criteria for each event record, and in case the criteria are satisfied by one or more players, include in the event record data at least indicative of the player or players performing the corresponding role" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 18 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The computing system of claim 17, wherein each entry in the event library additionally includes data at least indicative of a mapping of player roles to visual elements, and the instructions further cause the computing system to at least perform: generation of a video at least including the visual elements corresponding to at least one event record" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
The closest prior art of record JOO et al (US Pub. No.: 20190022487) for Claims 3-9 and 12-18 does not teach all the elements in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim. JOO only discloses processing data describing a sporting event in order to evaluate a model that receives input at least part of the processed data. The prior art also discloses each entry including data at least indicative of a type of gameplay event in terms of criteria defined and an event record includes data at least indicative of the type of gameplay event.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EILEEN M ADAMS whose telephone number is 571-270-3688. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30-5:00 EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571) 272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4688.
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 any 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.
/EILEEN M ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481