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
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 16 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,010,398. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Instant Application
Patent 12,010,398
15. A method for graphical data presentation for a sporting event, comprising:
providing a server platform configured for communication with at least one input device and at least one display device;
the server platform processing input data from the at least one input device, thereby creating processed data;
the server platform customizing and integrating a presentation of the processed data with a presentation of the sporting event;
the server platform customizing a graphical data presentation on the at least one display device based on a specific party related to the sporting event; and
the at least one display device displaying the presentation of the processed data with the presentation of the sporting event.
15. A method for graphical data presentation for a sporting event, comprising:
providing a server platform constructed and configured for communication with at least one input device and at least one display device;
the server platform receiving input data from the at least one input device;
the server platform processing the input data based on a framework of the sporting event, thereby creating processed data;
the server platform customizing and integrating a presentation of the processed data with a presentation of the sporting event; and
the at least one display device displaying the presentation of the processed data with the presentation of the sporting event based on production sequencing.
16. The method of claim 15, further comprising the server platform customizing a graphical user interface (GUI) and the graphical data presentation for the at least one display device based on a specific party related to the sporting event, wherein the specific party includes owners, coaches, trainers, medical staff, in-stadium displays, announcers, fans, and/or viewers.
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. 10,206,013. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are a broader version of the patented invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,484,757. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are a broader version of the patented invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,951,957. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are a broader version of the patented invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,528,537. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are a broader version of the patented invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,010,398. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are a broader version of the patented invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,238,388. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are a broader version of the patented invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goswami (Pub. No. 2018/0054659) in view of Chang et al. (hereinafter ‘Chang’, Pub. No. 2022/0335720).
Regarding claims 1, 12, 15 and 18, Goswami teaches a system for graphical data presentation for a sporting event (Fig. 1), comprising:
a server platform configured for network communication with at least one input device and at least one display device (server 120, Fig. 1; which is connected to sensors 110, cameras 108 and finally to user device 134. They are connected through networks 128 and 130; [0035]);
wherein the server platform is operable to process input data from the at least one input device, thereby creating processed data (the system determines the moments where an activity of interest has or will happen, by processing the sensor data and statistical data; [0022]; [0035]; [0047]. Sensors send the data to server in real time or near real time, [0019]; [0029]-[0031]);
wherein the server platform is operable to customize and integrate a presentation of the processed data with a presentation of the sporting event ([0114]); and
wherein the at least one display device is operable to display the presentation of the processed data with the presentation of the sporting event (Figs. 6A-D, [0030]; [0052]; [0118]-[0123]).
On the other hand, Goswami does not explicitly teach
wherein the server platform is configured to customize a graphical data presentation on a graphical user interface (GUI) of the at least one display device based on a specific party related to the sporting event.
However, in an analogous art, Chang teaches a system that generates an interface for showing video and statistics measured with a multiplicity of sensors ([0398]). The user interface can provide coaches, players and fans with analyzed options based on statistics and measurements ([0120]; [0125]; [0207]; [0291]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goswami’s invention with Chang’s feature of having a user interface or video stream specific for caches, players and/or fans for the benefit of having information for making decisions or helping viewers to understand strategies/plays.
Regarding claim 2, Goswami and Chang teach wherein a framework of the sporting event is based on a context of the sporting event (Goswami: [0018]-[0023]; [0070], where the video sequencing could depend on event prediction, activity of interest, statistics and received sensor data for decisive moments).
Regarding claims 3 and 20, Goswami and Chang teach wherein the framework of the sporting event is further based on the production sequencing (Goswami: [0018]-[0023]; [0070], where the video sequencing could depend on event prediction, activity of interest, statistics and received sensor data for decisive moments).
Regarding claim 4, Goswami and Chang teach wherein the framework of the sporting event is based on a type of the at least one display device, wherein the system provides a customized presentation of the sporting event based on the type of the at least one display device (Goswami: [0085]).
Regarding claim 5, Goswami and Chang teach wherein the at least one display device is further operable to display and interact with the presentation of the processed data (Goswami: [0123]-[0127]).
Regarding claim 6, Goswami and Chang teach wherein the processed data is operable for integration with a character generator and/or a virtual presentation, and wherein the integration with the character generator and/or the virtual presentation is performed in real-time or near real-time (Goswami: [0118]; [0123]).
Regarding claim 7, Goswami and Chang teach wherein the at least one input device is embedded in or adhesively attached to skin of at least one sports player in the sporting event (Goswami: [0046]).
Regarding claim 8, Goswami and Chang teach wherein a production sequencing is not fixed and is based on a rhythm, an event sequencing, and/or a natural cadence of the sporting event (Goswami: [0018]-[0023], where the video sequencing could depend on event prediction, activity of interest and received sensor data for decisive moments).
Regarding claims 9, 13 and 17, Goswami and Chang teach wherein the presentation of the processed data is an in-game hybrid statistics line embedded in the presentation of the sporting event (Goswami: where the presented data includes historical and real-time statistics, [0030]; [0074]; [0123]).
Regarding claims 10 and 14, Goswami and Chang teach wherein the in-game hybrid statistics line comprises a section for next generation statistical data (Goswami: where the presented data includes historical and real-time statistics, [0030]; [0074]; [0123]. The real-time are stats received in real-time from sensors worn used by athletes and/or equipment).
Regarding claims 11 and 16, Goswami and Chang teach wherein the server platform includes one or more cloud servers (Chang: [0438]; [0440]).
Regarding claim 19, Goswami and Chang teach wherein the server platform includes at least one machine learning engine and wherein the machine learning engine processes the input data to generate the processed data (Goswami: [0069]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR S PARRA whose telephone number is (571)270-1449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: Mostly 10-6PM.
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-2721915. 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.
/OMAR S PARRA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421