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 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,611,586. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application and the parent both claim identifying, by a computing system, a target player; generating, by the computing system, rookie priors for the target player based on characteristics of the target player; generating, by the computing system, time series data points for the target player based on at least one of the rookie priors and historical statistics of the target player; projecting, by the computing system, a game position of the target player based on the historical statistics of the target player; projecting, by the computing system, next game projections for the target player based on at least one of the rookie priors, the time series data points, the game position, and the historical statistics of the target player; and generating, by the computing system, a contribution of the target player to a team's production based on the next game projections. Therefore, the subject matter claimed in the instant application is not patentably distinct from the parent claims.
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 generating sports player performance projection, 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:
identifying, by a computing system, a target player;
generating, by the computing system, rookie priors for the target player based on characteristics of the target player;
generating, by the computing system, time series data points for the target player based on at least one of the rookie priors and historical statistics of the target player;
projecting, by the computing system, a game position of the target player based on the historical statistics of the target player;
projecting, by the computing system, next game projections for the target player based on at least one of the rookie priors, the time series data points, the game position, and the historical statistics of the target player; and
generating, by the computing system, a contribution of the target player to a team's production based on the next game projections.
Accordingly, as indicated above in bold, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea, as well as independent claims 8 and 15. Further, dependent Claims 2 – 7, 9 – 14 and 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’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, 8 and 15 (and their respective dependent Claims 2 – 7, 9 – 14 and 16 – 20) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1, 8 and 15), 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 computing system, processor, memory as recited in independent Claims 1, 8 and 15 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, the computing system 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, 8 and 15 (and their respective dependent Claims 2 – 7, 9 – 14 and 16 – 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 computing system, processor, memory as recited in independent claims 1, 8 and 15). 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, 8 and 15 (and their respective dependent Claims 2 – 7, 9 – 14 and 16 – 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 computing system, processor, memory 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, 8 and 15 (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.
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