DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the Instant Application.
Claims 1-7, 11-15, 17 and 18 are rejected (Non-Final Rejection).
Claims 8-10, 16, 19 and 20 are objected to.
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
The Instant Application, filed 11/24/2025, claims priority from Provisional Application 63/725,397, filed 11/26/2024. Thus, the effective filing date of the Instant Application is 11/26/2024 for what is recited therein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/19/2026 was considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-7, 11-15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alabi et al. (“Alabi”), United States Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0070051, in view of Bacot et al. (“Bacot”), United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0198799.
As per claim 1, Alabi discloses a computer implemented method for automated transformation of sports data for metric based output determination, comprising:
receiving video data including a plurality of video frames captured during a sporting occasion ([0038] wherein a pre-processing agent receives video data including at least one game), wherein each frame of the plurality of video frames includes data corresponding to one or more agents ([0038] wherein frames of the video include data corresponding to one or more agents (recognized as players in the prior art));
receiving event data associated with the video data ([0034]-[0035] wherein event data (game data 110 in the prior art) is received with the video data for pre-processing with the video data);
processing the plurality of video frames and the event data to generate imputed tracking data, wherein the imputed tracking data includes positional data and movement data for each of the one or more agents ([0038] wherein tracking data is processed that includes position data (x,y) coordinates of all players during the game);
determining one or more metrics based on the imputed tracking data ([0040] wherein metrics are imputed from tracking data), and
determining an output based on the one or more metrics for the one or more agents ([0042] wherein a metric can be output to a client device), but does not disclose wherein the one or more metrics includes at least one of a pass option, a pressure, a line detection, and a marking. However, Bacot teaches wherein the one or more metrics includes at least one of a pass option, a pressure, a line detection, and a marking (Examiner notes the use of “one or more metrics includes at least one of” in the claim language, which means only one metric may be taught for the claim language to be taught and two are taught by Bacot including [0199] wherein possible pass options are described and [0200] wherein pressure on the ball carrier is described).
Alabi describes metrics based on tracking data including estimated player locations, but does not expressly describe metrics included in the claim language. Bacot teaches analyzing position and movement information to obtain performance indicators such as possible passing options and pressure on the ball carrier. One could use the tracking of players from Alabi to determine the performance indicators of passing options and pressure from Bacot in order to provide more decisive performance data from game footage.
As per claim 2, note the rejection of claim 1 where Alabi and Bacot are combined. The combination teaches the computer implemented method of claim 1. Bacot further teaches wherein the pass option identifies available passing opportunities for an object carrier ([0199] wherein all possible pass options are identified) based on the positional data and the movement data for each of the one or more agents ([0031]-[0036] wherein position and movement data for each of the players is tracked and [0247] wherein potential game actions, like pass options are determined).
As per claim 3, note the rejection of claim 1 where Alabi and Bacot are combined. The combination teaches the computer implemented method of claim 1. Bacot further teaches wherein the pressure quantifies a defensive pressure applied to an object carrier based on a proximity of the one or more agents determined by the positional data and the movement data for each of the one or more agents ([0200] wherein pressure on the ball carrier is described and [0243] wherein pressure is determined, and [0031]-[0036] wherein position and movement data for each of the players is tracked.)
As per claim 4, note the rejection of claim 1 where Alabi and Bacot are combined. The combination teaches the computer implemented method of claim 1. Since the “one or more metrics includes at least one of” includes passing options and pressure, and wherein the line detection metric is not necessary, these limitations are not currently necessary for the interpretation of claim language. Therefore, if claim 4 was included in claim 1, the combination of Alabi and Bacot would teach this claim.
As per claim 5, note the rejection of claim 1 where Alabi and Bacot are combined. The combination teaches the computer implemented method of claim 1. Since the “one or more metrics includes at least one of” includes passing options and pressure, and wherein the marking is not necessary, these limitations are not currently necessary for the interpretation of claim language. Therefore, if claim 5 was included in claim 1, the combination of Alabi and Bacot would teach this claim.
As per claim 6, note the rejection of claim 1 where Alabi and Bacot are combined. The combination teaches the computer implemented method of claim 1. Bacot further teaches wherein the one or more metrics includes a player run to identify one or more movement patterns for each of the one or more agents ([0255]-[0256] wherein player speed is described as being tracked for patterns and in-possession forward player run is described).
As per claim 7, note the rejection of claim 1 where Alabi and Bacot are combined. The combination teaches the computer implemented method of claim 6. Bacot further teaches wherein the player run is categorized into at least one of an in-possession or an out-of-possession based on the positional data and the movement data for each of the one or more agents (Examiner notes the use of “at least one” an “in position” run is described in [0256] wherein ani n-possession forward player run is described since a score is possible).
As per claim 11, Alabi discloses a system for automated transformation of sports data for metric based output determination, the system comprising: a non-transitory computer readable medium configured to store processor-readable instructions ([0005]); and a processor operatively connected to the non-transitory computer readable medium ([0005]), and configured to execute the instructions to perform the method of claim 1. Thus, the combination of Alabi and Bacot teach the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
As per claim 12, note the rejection of claim 11 where Alabi and Bacot are combined. The combination teaches the system of claim 11. Bacot further teaches wherein the pass option identifies available passing opportunities for an object carrier based on the positional data and the movement data for each of the one or more agents ([0031]-[0036] wherein position and movement data for each of the players is tracked and [0247] wherein potential game actions, like pass options are determined), and wherein the pressure quantifies a defensive pressure applied to an object carrier based on a proximity of the one or more agents determined by the positional data and the movement data for each of the one or more agents ([0200] wherein pressure on the ball carrier is described and [0243] wherein pressure is determined, and [0031]-[0036] wherein position and movement data for each of the players is tracked.)
.
As per claim 13, note the rejection of claim 11 where Alabi and Bacot are combined. The combination teaches the system of claim 11. Since the “one or more metrics includes at least one of” in claim 11 includes passing options and pressure, and wherein the line detection and the marking is not necessary. these limitations are not currently necessary for the interpretation of claim language. Therefore, if claim 13 was included in claim 11, the combination of Alabi and Bacot would teach this claim.
As per claim 14, note the rejection of claim 11 where Alabi and Bacot are combined. The combination teaches the system of claim 11. Bacot further teaches wherein the one or more metrics includes a player run to identify one or more movement patterns for each of the one or more agents ([0255]-[0256] wherein player speed is described as being tracked for patterns and in-possession forward player run is described).
As per claim 15, note the rejection of claim 11 where Alabi and Bacot are combined. The combination teaches the system of claim 14. Bacot further teaches wherein the player run is categorized into at least one of an in-possession or an out-of-possession based on the positional data and the movement data for each of the one or more agents (Examiner notes the use of “at least one” an “in position” run is described in [0256] wherein an in-possession forward player run is described since a score is possible).
As per claim 17, claim 17 is computer product that provides the method of claim 1 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 18, Alabi discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 17, wherein the pass option identifies available passing opportunities for an object carrier based on the positional data and the movement data for each of the one or more agents ([0199] wherein all possible pass options are identified), wherein the pressure quantifies a defensive pressure applied to an object carrier based on a proximity of the one or more agents determined by the positional data and the movement data for each of the one or more agents ([0200] wherein pressure on the ball carrier is described and [0243] wherein pressure is determined, and [0031]-[0036] wherein position and movement data for each of the players is tracked), Since the “one or more metrics includes at least one of” in claim 17 includes passing options and pressure, and wherein the line detection and the marking is not necessary. these limitations are not currently necessary for the interpretation of claim language. Therefore, if claim 13 was included in claim 11, the combination of Alabi and Bacot would teach this claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10, 16, 19 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per claim 8, the following limitations including “wherein the in-possession category includes one or more of an in to out, an out to in, a coming short, a dropping off, a supporting runs, an overlapping and underlapping runs, a runs ahead of an object, a runs in behind, and a cross option,” are neither anticipated nor obvious over the prior art on record. Therefore, claim 8 is objected to. Claim 19 is the program product that performs the method of claim 8 and is objected for the same rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 9, the following limitations including “wherein the one or more metrics includes a phase of play that categorizes one or more portions of a sporting occasion into at least one of a recovery, a build-up, a progressive play, a counter-attack, and a set piece phase,” are neither anticipated nor obvious over the prior art on record. Therefore, claim 9 is objected to. Claim 10 is objected to at least based on its dependency on claim 9. Claims 16 and 20 are the system and program product that perform the method of claim 9 and are objected to for the same rationale and reasoning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KANNAN SHANMUGASUNDARAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM -6:00 PM.
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, Charles Rones can be reached at (571) 272-4085. 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.
/KANNAN SHANMUGASUNDARAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
