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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 11,554,292, claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 12,175,754, and claims 1-20 of Provisional Application No. 18/945,787. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the pending application are encompassed by the claims of the patents and provisional application.
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. Claim 1 recites a computer-implemented method of generating a prediction model. The limitation of receiving, by one or more processors, tracking data corresponding to a match from a data store, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by one or more processors,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by one or more processors” language, “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally remembering data regarding a match. Similarly, the limitations of: generating and learning are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The same interpretation is applied to the remaining steps in claim 1. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – by one or more processors. The computing system is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor implementing a step) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. 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 element of using by one or more processors amounts 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. The claim is not patent eligible. Similar reasoning is applied to claims 2-20.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2018/0032858 A1 to Lucey et al. (hereinafter “Lucey”) in view of US Publication No. 2015/0258416 A1 to Ianni et al. (hereinafter “Ianni”).
Concerning claim 1, Lucey discloses a computer-implemented method of generating a prediction model, the computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, by one or more processors, tracking data corresponding to a match from a data store (Fig. 1 - Play Database; paragraphs [0003], [0006], [0044], [0052], [0053], [0081] - the present system utilize information regarding the trajectories of the ball and the players, as well as game events and contexts);
generating, by the one or more processors, one or more input data sets based on the tracking data, wherein generating the one or more input data sets includes enriching the tracking data (Fig. 1 - Play Database; paragraphs [0003], [0006], [0044], [0052], [0053], [0081] – match data is processed to identify plays); and
learning, by the one or more processors, via a prediction model, a plurality of predicted variants for each play corresponding to the one or more input data sets (paragraphs [0052], [0081] – predictions of variants are determined).
Lucey discloses in at least paragraphs [0081] and [0082] to predict the trajectory of a ball in a sporting event during a time frame, however, lacks specifically disclosing, and Ianni discloses wherein the tracking data includes one or more coordinates and one or more time stamps associated with at least one object or at least one actor (Figs. 10A-11B, paragraphs [0096], [0097], [0106], [0107] – one or more coordinates and timestamps are associated with an event).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of timestamp data as shown by Ianni in the system of Lucey in order to produce more accurate results.
Concerning claims 2, 9, and 16, Lucey discloses the computer-implemented method further comprising: generating, by the one or more processors, a predicted identity corresponding to each of the one or more input data sets (paragraphs [0052], [0081] – predictions of variants are determined).
Concerning claims 3, 10, and 17, Lucey discloses the computer-implemented method further comprising: reducing, by the one or more processors a loss of the plurality of predicted variants and an input sample of one or more variants (paragraphs [0042], [0044], [0052], [0053], [0060], [0061], [0072], [0081] – reducing a loss of predicted variants).
Concerning claims 4, 11, and 18, Lucey discloses wherein the learning the plurality of predicted variants for each play corresponding to the one or more input data sets comprises: utilizing, by the one or more processors, an optimizer to train the prediction model (paragraphs [0042], [0044], [0052], [0053], [0060], [0061], [0072], [0081] – optimizer trains model).
Concerning claims 5, 12, and 19, Lucey discloses wherein enriching the tracking data includes: enriching, by the one or more processors the tracking data with additional data corresponding to a possession, a playing style, or a team identity (paragraphs [0053], [0056] – event data includes play style).
Concerning claims 6, 13, and 20, Lucey discloses wherein generating the one or more input data sets based on the tracking data comprises: aligning, by the one or more processors, the at least one actor to a global template to reduce permutation noise (paragraphs [0042], [0044], [0052], [0053], [0060], [0061], [0072], [0081] – permutation noise is reduced).
Concerning claims 7, and 14, Lucey discloses wherein at least one of the one or more input data sets correspond to a possession of the match (Fig. 1 - Play Database; paragraphs [0003], [0006], [0044], [0052], [0053], [0081] - the present system utilize information regarding the trajectories of the ball and the players, as well as game events and contexts).
Concerning claims 8 and 15, see the rejection of claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed in the PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALINA D BLAISE whose telephone number is (571)270-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 7:00 am - 5:00 pm (PT).
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, Xuan Thai can be reached on 571-272-7147. 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.
MALINA D. BLAISE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/MALINA D. BLAISE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights