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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The applicant indicates that the current application is a continuation application of a National Stage Application of PCT International Patent Application No. PCT/KR2025/003693 filed on March 24, 2025, under 35 U.S.C. §371, which claims priority to Korean Patent Application No. 10-2024- 0042931 filed March 29, 2024 which are all hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety.
Please not the following requirements of a National Stage Application (with emphasis on portions highlighted in bold):
35 U.S.C. 371 National stage: Commencement.
(a) Receipt from the International Bureau of copies of international applications with any amendments to the claims, international search reports, and international preliminary examination reports including any annexes thereto may be required in the case of international applications designating or electing the United States.
(b) Subject to subsection (f) of this section, the national stage shall commence with the expiration of the applicable time limit under article 22 (1) or (2), or under article 39 (1)(a) of the treaty.
(c) The applicant shall file in the Patent and Trademark Office—
(1) the national fee provided in section 41(a);
(2) a copy of the international application, unless not required under subsection (a) of this section or already communicated by the International Bureau, and a translation into the English language of the international application, if it was filed in another language;
(3) amendments, if any, to the claims in the international application, made under article 19 of the treaty, unless such amendments have been communicated to the Patent and Trademark Office by the International Bureau, and a translation into the English language if such amendments were made in another language;
(4) an oath or declaration of the inventor (or other person authorized under chapter 11 ) complying with the requirements of section 115 and with regulations prescribed for oaths or declarations of applicants;
(5) a translation into the English language of any annexes to the international preliminary examination report, if such annexes were made in another language.
(d) The requirement with respect to the national fee referred to in subsection (c)(1), the translation referred to in subsection (c)(2), and the oath or declaration referred to in subsection (c)(4) of this section shall be complied with by the date of the commencement of the national stage or by such later time as may be fixed by the Director. The copy of the international application referred to in subsection (c)(2) shall be submitted by the date of the commencement of the national stage. Failure to comply with these requirements shall be regarded as abandonment of the application by the parties thereof. The payment of a surcharge may be required as a condition of accepting the national fee referred to in subsection (c)(1) or the oath or declaration referred to in subsection (c)(4) of this section if these requirements are not met by the date of the commencement of the national stage. The requirements of subsection (c)(3) of this section shall be complied with by the date of the commencement of the national stage, and failure to do so shall be regarded as a cancellation of the amendments to the claims in the international application made under article 19 of the treaty. The requirement of subsection (c)(5) shall be complied with at such time as may be fixed by the Director and failure to do so shall be regarded as cancellation of the amendments made under article 34 (2)(b) of the treaty.
(e) After an international application has entered the national stage, no patent may be granted or refused thereon before the expiration of the applicable time limit under article 28 or article 41 of the treaty, except with the express consent of the applicant. The applicant may present amendments to the specification, claims, and drawings of the application after the national stage has commenced.
(f) At the express request of the applicant, the national stage of processing may be commenced at any time at which the application is in order for such purpose and the applicable requirements of subsection (c) of this section have been complied with.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in KR on 3/29/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 10-2024-0042931 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the input current position" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Furthermore, in regards to Claim 1, it is unclear in regards to “the position played by the professional player further includes a position different from the position of the player” refers to “the same position” or “wherein the information…includes a position played by the professional player”. If it refers to “same position” it is unclear in regards to how the position of the professional player be the “same” and be “different” from the player. Furthermore, it is unclear in regards to whether the information about the professional player includes (a position played by the professional player, the professional player's strengths and weaknesses, or the professional player's coach)(in the alternative one of the following), and (the position played by the professional player further includes a position different from the position of the player, and the reference heatmap represents pass data of the professional player) or the information includes a position played by the professional player, the professional player's strengths and weaknesses, or the professional player's coach and the applicant is further, separately, defining the position played by the professional player further includes a position different from the position of the player, and the reference heatmap represents pass data of the professional player.
Claim 2 inherits the deficiencies of Claim 1 from which it depends; therefore, is herein rejected.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) “A method performed on a computing device, comprising: obtaining a query heatmap representing pass data of a player and a current position of the player; classifying the query heatmap into one of a plurality of clusters by inputting the query heatmap into an artificial intelligence model; and providing the player with information about at least one professional player who is the owner of a reference heatmap classified into the same cluster as the query heatmap and has the same position as the input current position, wherein the information about the professional player includes a position played by the professional player, the professional player's strengths and weaknesses, or the professional player's coach, the position played by the professional player further includes a position different from the position of the player, and the reference heatmap represents pass data of the professional player” (Claim 1). Each of the above underlined portions are related to an abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity, particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions for or to switch from a first game state for a first bet game to a second game state for a non-bet second game and manage a display-use remaining number of game plays for the second game). The interaction encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping). In this case, instructions or rules for obtaining a query heatmap representing pass data of a player and a current position of the player; classifying the query heatmap into one of a plurality of clusters; and providing the player with information about at least one professional player who is the owner of a reference heatmap classified into the same cluster as the query heatmap and has the same position as the input current position, wherein the information about the professional player includes a position played by the professional player, the professional player's strengths and weaknesses, or the professional player's coach, the position played by the professional player further includes a position different from the position of the player, and the reference heatmap represents pass data of the professional player (Claim 1) pertain to concepts performed managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) pertaining to organizing human activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (particularly the technological environment of a gaming device and/or gaming system) (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer components (computing device, artificial intelligence model, database) are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of a “computing device”, “artificial intelligence model”, and/or “database” are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility (the use of a computing device and/or generic components is merely illustrating the environment in which the abstract idea is practiced). These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. Taking the physical elements individually and in combination, the computer-based components perform purely generic computer-based functions that are silent in regards to clearly indicating how a computer aids the method or the extent to which a computer performs/implements the method. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer, ’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
It is settled law that adding physical elements to an abstract idea will not amount to an “inventive concept" if the physical elements are well-known, routine and conventional elements and they perform their well-known, routine and conventional functions. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, L.L.C. (Fed Cir 2016):
Turning to the second step in our analysis, we find that the claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner into a patent-eligible application of that idea. It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294). We agree with the district court that the claims’ recitation of a “telephone unit,” a “server”, an “image analysis unit,” and a “control unit” fail to add an inventive concept sufficient to bring the abstract idea into the realm of patentability. (Emphasis added by Examiner.)
On the question of preemption, the Federal Circuit has stated in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of DNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
Nor do the dependent claim(s) 2 add “significantly more” since they merely add to the claimed concepts relating managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) under the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The dependent claims failing to place the claimed invention into a practical applicant or additional generic components of the dependent claims failing to amount to “significantly more” for the same reasons noted above.
Consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claim are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Best Applicable Prior Art
In regards to Claim 1, Crist (US 11,954,969) teaches a method performed on a computing device, comprising: obtaining a query heatmap representing pass data of a player and a current position of the player; providing information about at least one professional player who is the owner of a reference heatmap and has the same position as the input current position, wherein the information about the professional player includes a position played by the professional player, the professional player's strengths and weaknesses, or the professional player's coach, the position played by the professional player further includes a position different from the position of the player, and the reference heatmap represents pass data of the professional player. Yoon (US 12,383,791) generally teaches it is known to classify heatmap data including position into a cluster by inputting the heatmap into an artificial intelligence model.
Crist in view of Yoon fails to teach classifying the query heatmap into one of a plurality of clusters by inputting the query heatmap into an artificial intelligence model; and providing the player with information about at least one professional player who is the owner of a reference heatmap classified into the same cluster as the query heatmap and has the same position as the input current position. Such limitations are considered nonobvious due to undue hindsight construction of the invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAMAR HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-6177. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 5:30pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571) 270-1344. 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.
/TRAMAR HARPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights