DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the “RESPONSE TO NON-FINAL ACTION” filed 17 March 2026. The Examiner acknowledges that no claims were amended, canceled, or added. Claims 20-21, 34-35, 37-42, 44, and 45 are pending.
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 .
Claim Interpretation
Examiner Notes: currently, NO limitation invokes interpretation under § 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Examiner’s Note Regarding § 101 Analysis: The Examiner notes that claim(s) 20 and 39 recites a judicial exception [“generating… grip profile data based on the sensor data; implementing a comparison of the grip profile data with preset grip profile data for the pitch type of the pitch; and providing an assessment of the baseball grip profile based on the comparison” (lines 14-17 of claim 20); “generating… grip profile data based on the sensor data; implementing a comparison of the grip profile data with preset grip profile data for the pitch type of the pitch; and providing an assessment of the softball grip profile based on the comparison” (lines 14-17 of claim 39)] at Step 2A Prong 1, which is considered to be an abstract idea that may be performed in the mind or by hand by merely observing at least a limited amount of known or previously collected data and drawing mental conclusions therefrom. However, the Examiner further notes that claim(s) 20 and 39 recites limitations directed towards additional elements [the use of an instrumented baseball as described in lines 3-13 and 18-23 of claim 20; the use of an instrumented softball as described in lines 3-13 and 18-23 of claim 39] that is/are considered to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A Prong 2 and allow the invention to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception at Step 2B.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 20-21, 34-35, 38-42, and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenwalt (US-20160354665-A1, previously presented) in view of DeBeliso (US-20090025475-A1, previously presented) and Corbeil (US-20190091520-A1, previously presented).
Regarding claim 20, Greenwalt teaches
A method of assessing a baseball grip profile, the method comprising:
capturing, with an instrumented baseball, sensor data during a pitch of the instrumented baseball, the pitch having a pitch type [Ball 100 of FIG. 1 is an exemplary ball that may be used to aid an individual while attempting to learn and execute different types of pitches (Greenwalt ¶0033)], the sensor data being indicative of grip position data and grip magnitude data correlated with the grip position data [ball 100 of FIG. 2 may include one or more pressure sensors that are capable of measuring and detecting an amount of pressure applied to ball 100… For example, when a pitch grips a baseball, such as ball 100, a certain amount of pressure is applied to various sections of ball 100 depending on the type of pitch intended on being thrown (Greenwalt ¶0048)], the instrumented baseball comprising:
a leather cover comprising stitch laces that stitch the leather cover together [cover portions 102a and 102b may be formed from an animal skin, such as a cowhide, horsehide, or leather (Greenwalt ¶0061, Fig. 1); First and second cover portions 102a and 102b may be sewn or stitched together using any suitable stitching material. For example, the stitching material may be a wool yarn, a waxed thread, a plastic, or any other suitable material, or any combination thereof… A typical baseball includes one hundred and eight (108) stitches 104 which connect first cover portion 102a and 102b together such that substantially unitary cover surrounds any interior portion(s) of ball 100 (Greenwalt ¶0035)];
a spherical core [As seen in FIG. 2, first and second cover portions 102a and 102b substantially surround an outer spherical portion 108 of ball 100 (Greenwalt ¶0038, Fig. 2)];
a plurality of pressure sensors disposed along a periphery of the spherical core between the leather cover and the spherical core [ball 100 of FIG. 2 may include one or more pressure sensors that are capable of measuring and detecting an amount of pressure applied to ball 100. For example, one or more pressure sensors may be located beneath cover portions 102a and/or 102b (Greenwalt ¶0048)]; and
a circuit connected to the plurality of pressure sensors, the circuit comprising a microcontroller, the circuit being embedded within the spherical core [Processor(s) 136 may include any suitable processing circuitry capable of controlling operations of one or more components within ball 100. In some embodiments, processor(s) 136 may facilitate communications between various components within ball 100 (Greenwalt ¶0045, Fig. 2)];
generating, with the microcontroller, grip profile data based on the sensor data [The pressure sensors may be used to determine when contact between a user's finger(s) and ball 100 exists and when it does not exist. For example, when a pitch grips a baseball, such as ball 100, a certain amount of pressure is applied to various sections of ball 100 depending on the type of pitch intended on being thrown. The pressure sensors are operable to detect when the user has applied pressure, when the user removes pressure, and/or where and how much pressure the user has applied to ball 100 (Greenwalt ¶0048); wherein in light of ¶0045, the processor(s) 136 being operable to receive outputs from other sensors is considered to read on the generation of the grip profile being performed by the processor(s) 136];
wherein a grip surface of the instrumented baseball has surface characteristics of a conventional baseball [For example, a standard baseball typically may have a circumference between 9.00 and 9.25 inches, a mass between 5.00 and 5.25 ounces, and a diameter between 2.86 and 2.94 inches. Thus, ball 100, in one embodiment, may have a substantially similar diameter, mass, and circumference (Greenwalt ¶0033), wherein ball 100 being defined as a baseball (see Greenwalt Fig. 1) is considered to define a grip surface of the instrumented baseball that has surface characteristics of a conventional baseball];
wherein the leather cover is positioned such that the stitch laces are disposed in accordance with positions of the plurality of pressure sensors [wherein the pressure sensors being configured to detect wherever the user has applied pressure to the ball 100 (see Greenwalt ¶0048), which is considered to include positions of the stitch laces on the ball, Greenwalt is considered to read on the claimed limitation].
However, Greenwalt fails to explicitly disclose a film disposed along the periphery of the spherical core between the leather cover and the spherical core; wherein the plurality of pressure sensors are disposed the film; wherein the film is shaped such that film forms a sensor array that universally covers the periphery of the spherical core.
DeBeliso discloses systems and methods for assessing a user’s grip, wherein DeBeliso discloses an instrumented ball comprising: a cover [neoprene sleeve 15 (DeBeliso Fig. 3); a spherical core [transducer body 11 (DeBeliso Fig. 3), wherein DeBeliso Fig. 5 depicts an alternate shape of the grip force transducer as being a sphere], a film disposed along the periphery of the spherical core between the cover and the spherical core [fabric substrate 19 (DeBeliso Figs. 4-5); high-resolution tactile array 20 is formed as a dielectric matrix including a fabric substrate 19 (DeBeliso ¶0044); FIG. 3 is an exploded perspective representation of grip force transducer 10 showing transducer body 11 about which high-resolution tactile array 20 is wrapped. Neoprene sleeve 15 is positioned about high-resolution tactile array 20 and an outer surface of neoprene sleeve 15 forms gripping surface 16 of grip force transducer 10 (DeBeliso ¶0043, Fig. 3)], a plurality of pressure sensors disposed on the film [A first plurality of electrodes 23 are arranged in a grid against second plurality of electrodes 24 forming a plurality of nodes 21… In one embodiment of the invention, high-resolution tactile array 20 for a typical hand held transducer would include in the range of one thousand nodes 21 (DeBeliso ¶0044, Fig. 4)]; wherein the film is shaped such that the plurality of pressure sensors forms a sensor array that universally covers the periphery of the spherical core [DeBeliso ¶0044, Figs. 3-5, wherein positioning sensors about a transducer body shaped like a sphere-shaped grip area is considered to read on forming a sensor array that universally covers the periphery of the spherical core].
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 the method of Greenwalt to employ a film disposed along the periphery of the spherical core between the leather cover and the spherical core; wherein the plurality of pressure sensors are disposed the film; wherein the film is shaped such that film forms a sensor array that universally covers the periphery of the spherical core, so as to allow for increased accuracy in determining grip force data [One advantage to employing high-resolution tactile array 20, shown in FIG. 3, is found in the resulting display as the closer the individual nodes 21 are to one another the more accurate interpolation of grip force between nodes becomes and hence the more accurate and informative the representation and imagery of the grip force data becomes (DeBeliso ¶0052)] and as mere simple substitution of one known element for another with similar expected results [allow for sensors to be positioned about a spherical object] [MPEP § 2143(I)(B)].
However, Greenwalt in view of DeBeliso fails to explicitly disclose wherein the film comprises a plurality of petals, such that the plurality of pressure sensors are disposed on the plurality of petals of the film. Moreover, while Greenwalt discloses implementing a comparison between measured IMU or accelerometer data and stored data [In response to a pitch being selected, parameters for the selected pitch may be retrieved from memory 134. These parameters are then compared with outputs detected by IMU(s) 130 and/or accelerometer(s) 132 to determine whether the selected pitch has been thrown correctly (Greenwalt ¶0072)], Greenwalt fails to explicitly disclose implementing a comparison of the grip profile data with preset grip profile data for the pitch type of the pitch; and providing an assessment of the baseball grip profile based on the comparison.
Corbeil discloses systems and methods for assessing handling of a sports ball, wherein Corbeil discloses arranging pressure sensors as a plurality of petal-shaped panels [In FIG. 7, one or more pressure sensors 716 may be arranged to form a (e.g., one/single) sensor panel 720. The sensor array 730 may comprise one or more sensor panels 720, for example six sensor panels 720 as illustrated in FIG. 7, among other scenarios. For example, one or more panels 720 may be combined to form the sensor array 730 which may be disposed over/on and/or adjacent to the air bladder 424, air bladder 4424, and/or air bladder 4624 to create a (e.g., complete) sensor skin (not shown) (Corbeil ¶0077, Fig. 7), wherein the sensor panels 720 are considered to be “petal-shaped” based on Applicant’s Figs. 14-15]. Corbeil further discloses performing analysis of the user’s grip of the sports ball based on measurements by the pressure sensors and visualization of real-time and/or historical data in order to allow for aggregate analysis and/or post-practice review of the user’s grip [The computing device 104 may be configured to determine one or more handling value(s) 42, perhaps for example based on one or more of the plurality of force values 46 for qualitative determination of an interaction/use/engagement with the sport ball 12, sport ball 412, sport ball 4412, and/or sport ball 4612, such as catching, rebounding, hitting, blocking, throwing, and/or handling to name just some non-limiting examples (Corbeil ¶0082); Any of the techniques using one or more of the sport ball 12, sport ball 412, sport ball 4412, and/or sport ball 4612 may provide a qualitative score and/or other calculation of a user's or player's grip, catch, and/or other handling behavior and/or technique, perhaps for example based on determination of force, time, and/or position of contact by the player or user (Corbeil ¶0086); a grip event between the two paired pressure sensors 16 and/or 716 may be considered valid, may be scored, and/or may be reported to the sport ball user (Corbeil ¶0102); In one or more techniques, the Grip Score may integrate strength, timing, and/or handling technique. In one or more techniques, strength, timing, and/or handling technique may be measured and/or displayed independently (Corbeil ¶0109); In one or more techniques, pressure sensor 16 and/or 716 channel output for any of the sport balls described herein may be measured and/or displayed. FIG. 15 illustrates an example of a display (e.g., real-time and/or historical) of pressure sensor channel (e.g., activation) output signals (e.g., measured forces) for one or more, or each, pressure sensor 16 and/or 716 for any of the sport balls described herein (Corbeil ¶0111].
Given the modified Greenwalt in view of DeBeliso teaches flexible film shaped such that the plurality of pressure sensors forms a sensor array that universally covers the periphery of the spherical core, 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 the method of Greenwalt in view of DeBeliso to employ the film comprising a plurality of petals, as Corbeil depicts a petal pattern as a known formation to achieve spherical coverage [Corbeil Fig. 7] and as this modification would amount to mere simple substitution of one known element for another with similar expected results [allow for coverage of a sphere] [MPEP § 2143(I)(B)].
Furthermore, based on the context of Greenwalt being directed towards the assessment and comparison of a user’s pitch of an instrumented ball with preset data for the pitch type of the pitch [Greenwalt ¶0072] and that certain pitches are known to include pressures applied to particular sections of the instrumented ball [For example, when a pitch grips a baseball, such as ball 100, a certain amount of pressure is applied to various sections of ball 100 depending on the type of pitch intended on being thrown (Greenwalt ¶0048)], 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 the method of Greenwalt in view of DeBeliso to employ implementing a comparison of the grip profile data with preset grip profile data for the pitch type of the pitch; and providing an assessment of the baseball grip profile based on the comparison, so as to allow for review of the quality of the user’s grip over time, as Corbeil indicates that it would be useful to evaluate handling of an instrumented sports ball [Corbeil ¶¶0036, 0082, 0086].
Regarding claim 21, Greenwalt in view of DeBeliso and Corbeil teaches
The method of claim 20, further comprising:
obtaining, with the processor, pitch data captured during the pitch, the pitch data being indicative of a pitch track taken by the instrumented baseball [when a pitcher releases ball 100, the outputs of IMU(s) 130 and/or accelerometer(s) 132 may be determined and recorded or stored in memory 134… For example, using accelerometer(s) 132, a position of ball 100 may be determined with respect to gravity, as well as a position with respect to a pitching mound (Greenwalt ¶0049)];
implementing a further comparison of the pitch data with preset pitch track data for the pitch type of the pitch [Greenwalt ¶0072]; and
providing the assessment comprises providing, with the processor, information regarding the further comparison [processor(s) 136 may cause illuminating elements 120, 122 to turn a first color in response to IMU(s) 130 and/or accelerometer(s) 132 detecting a correct spin rate, velocity, and horizontal displacement for a selected pitch. The number of parameters that may be required for a pitch to be “correct” may vary and may also be set by the user… An advanced or professional setting may, instead, require the velocity, vertical displacement, horizontal displacement, and spin rate of the selected pitch be measured or detected in order to deem the thrown pitch “correct” (Greenwalt ¶0073)].
Regarding claim 34, Greenwalt in view of DeBeliso and Corbeil teaches
The method of claim 20.
However, Greenwalt in view of DeBeliso and Corbeil as presently modified fails to explicitly disclose wherein providing the assessment of the baseball grip profile comprises determining an effort of muscular exertion during the pitch.
DeBeliso discloses determining an effort of muscular exertion [The grip force measured while grasping the grip sensor transducer permits clear assessment of the functional capability/capacity of the finger(s), the palm and the phalange(s) (DeBeliso ¶0023); Grip force assessment system 50 provides the user with an ability to view and assess grip force in real time providing imagery depicting the function of individual fingers, and the complex grip capability/capacity of the entire hand (DeBeliso ¶0052), wherein assessing the functionality of individual fingers is considered to read on “determining an effort of muscular exertion” based on the Applicant’s disclosure at ¶0034 of the instant specification defining “quantifying the effort of musculature” as mapping the force applied by a certain muscle].
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 the method of Greenwalt in view of DeBeliso and Corbeil to employ wherein providing the assessment of the baseball grip profile comprises determining an effort of muscular exertion during the pitch, so as to provide additional contextual information regarding grip capability/capacity of individual fingers.
Regarding claim 35, Greenwalt in view of DeBeliso and Corbeil teaches
The method of claim 20, wherein the stitch laces are aligned with the plurality of pressure sensors [wherein the film being shaped such that the pressure sensors form a sensor array that universally covers the periphery of the spherical core as taught by the § 103 modification above is considered to include the plurality of pressure sensors being aligned with the stitch laces].
Regarding claim 38, Greenwalt in view of DeBeliso and Corbeil teaches
The method of claim 20, wherein the spherical core, the film, the plurality of pressure sensors, and the circuit are configured such that the grip assessment device has a weight of a baseball [Ball 100 of FIG. 1 is, in one embodiment, substantially similar in size, weight, and feel to that of a baseball used for professional baseball games (Greenwalt ¶0033)].
Regarding claim 39, Greenwalt teaches
A method of assessing a softball grip profile, the method comprising:
capturing, with an instrumented softball, sensor data during a pitch of the instrumented softball, the pitch having a pitch type [Ball 100 of FIG. 1 is an exemplary ball that may be used to aid an individual while attempting to learn and execute different types of pitches… For example, ball 100 may correspond, in some embodiments, to a softball (Greenwalt ¶0033)], the sensor data being indicative of grip position data and grip magnitude data correlated with the grip position data [ball 100 of FIG. 2 may include one or more pressure sensors that are capable of measuring and detecting an amount of pressure applied to ball 100… For example, when a pitch grips a baseball, such as ball 100, a certain amount of pressure is applied to various sections of ball 100 depending on the type of pitch intended on being thrown (Greenwalt ¶0048)], the instrumented softball comprising:
a leather cover comprising stitch laces that stitch the leather cover together [cover portions 102a and 102b may be formed from an animal skin, such as a cowhide, horsehide, or leather (Greenwalt ¶0061, Fig. 1); First and second cover portions 102a and 102b may be sewn or stitched together using any suitable stitching material. For example, the stitching material may be a wool yarn, a waxed thread, a plastic, or any other suitable material, or any combination thereof… A typical softball, however, may include eighty eight (88) stitches 104 connecting first cover portion 102a and 102b together (Greenwalt ¶0035)];
a spherical core [As seen in FIG. 2, first and second cover portions 102a and 102b substantially surround an outer spherical portion 108 of ball 100 (Greenwalt ¶0038, Fig. 2)];
a plurality of pressure sensors disposed along a periphery of the spherical core between the leather cover and the spherical core [ball 100 of FIG. 2 may include one or more pressure sensors that are capable of measuring and detecting an amount of pressure applied to ball 100. For example, one or more pressure sensors may be located beneath cover portions 102a and/or 102b (Greenwalt ¶0048)]; and
a circuit connected to the plurality of pressure sensors, the circuit comprising a microcontroller, the circuit being embedded within the spherical core [Processor(s) 136 may include any suitable processing circuitry capable of controlling operations of one or more components within ball 100. In some embodiments, processor(s) 136 may facilitate communications between various components within ball 100 (Greenwalt ¶0045, Fig. 2)];
generating, with the microcontroller, grip profile data based on the sensor data [The pressure sensors may be used to determine when contact between a user's finger(s) and ball 100 exists and when it does not exist. For example, when a pitch grips a baseball, such as ball 100, a certain amount of pressure is applied to various sections of ball 100 depending on the type of pitch intended on being thrown. The pressure sensors are operable to detect when the user has applied pressure, when the user removes pressure, and/or where and how much pressure the user has applied to ball 100 (Greenwalt ¶0048); wherein in light of ¶0045, the processor(s) 136 being operable to receive outputs from other sensors is considered to read on the generation of the grip profile being performed by the processor(s) 136];
wherein a grip surface of the instrumented softball has surface characteristics of a conventional softball [A typical softball may have a circumference between 10.875 and 12.125 inches, a mass between 5.875 and 7.000 ounces, and a diameter between 3.45 and 3.86 inches. The specific parameters for the softball may vary depending on the type of softball game being played. For instance, slow pitch softball may have a slightly heavier and larger softball, whereas fast pitch softball may use a slightly smaller and lighter softball (Greenwalt ¶0033), wherein ball 100 being defined as a softball (see Greenwalt Fig. 1) is considered to define a grip surface of the instrumented baseball that has surface characteristics of a conventional softball]; and
wherein the leather cover is positioned such that the stitch laces are disposed in accordance with positions of the plurality of pressure sensors [wherein the pressure sensors being configured to detect wherever the user has applied pressure to the ball 100 (see Greenwalt ¶0048), which is considered to include positions of the stitch laces on the ball, Greenwalt is considered to read on the claimed limitation].
However, Greenwalt fails to explicitly disclose a film disposed along the periphery of the spherical core between the leather cover and the spherical core; wherein the plurality of pressure sensors are disposed the film; wherein the film is shaped such that film forms a sensor array that universally covers the periphery of the spherical core.
DeBeliso discloses systems and methods for assessing a user’s grip, wherein DeBeliso discloses an instrumented ball comprising: a cover [neoprene sleeve 15 (DeBeliso Fig. 3); a spherical core [transducer body 11 (DeBeliso Fig. 3), wherein DeBeliso Fig. 5 depicts an alternate shape of the grip force transducer as being a sphere], a film disposed along the periphery of the spherical core between the cover and the spherical core [fabric substrate 19 (DeBeliso Figs. 4-5); high-resolution tactile array 20 is formed as a dielectric matrix including a fabric substrate 19 (DeBeliso ¶0044); FIG. 3 is an exploded perspective representation of grip force transducer 10 showing transducer body 11 about which high-resolution tactile array 20 is wrapped. Neoprene sleeve 15 is positioned about high-resolution tactile array 20 and an outer surface of neoprene sleeve 15 forms gripping surface 16 of grip force transducer 10 (DeBeliso ¶0043, Fig. 3)], a plurality of pressure sensors disposed on the film [A first plurality of electrodes 23 are arranged in a grid against second plurality of electrodes 24 forming a plurality of nodes 21… In one embodiment of the invention, high-resolution tactile array 20 for a typical hand held transducer would include in the range of one thousand nodes 21 (DeBeliso ¶0044, Fig. 4)]; wherein the film is shaped such that the plurality of pressure sensors forms a sensor array that universally covers the periphery of the spherical core [DeBeliso ¶0044, Figs. 3-5, wherein positioning sensors about a transducer body shaped like a sphere-shaped grip area is considered to read on forming a sensor array that universally covers the periphery of the spherical core].
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 the method of Greenwalt to employ a film disposed along the periphery of the spherical core between the leather cover and the spherical core; wherein the plurality of pressure sensors are disposed the film; wherein the film is shaped such that film forms a sensor array that universally covers the periphery of the spherical core, so as to allow for increased accuracy in determining grip force data [One advantage to employing high-resolution tactile array 20, shown in FIG. 3, is found in the resulting display as the closer the individual nodes 21 are to one another the more accurate interpolation of grip force between nodes becomes and hence the more accurate and informative the representation and imagery of the grip force data becomes (DeBeliso ¶0052)] and as mere simple substitution of one known element for another with similar expected results [allow for sensors to be positioned about a spherical object] [MPEP § 2143(I)(B)].
However, Greenwalt in view of DeBeliso fails to explicitly disclose wherein the film comprises a plurality of petals, such that the plurality of pressure sensors are disposed on the plurality of petals of the film. Moreover, while Greenwalt discloses implementing a comparison between measured IMU or accelerometer data and stored data [In response to a pitch being selected, parameters for the selected pitch may be retrieved from memory 134. These parameters are then compared with outputs detected by IMU(s) 130 and/or accelerometer(s) 132 to determine whether the selected pitch has been thrown correctly (Greenwalt ¶0072)], Greenwalt fails to explicitly disclose implementing a comparison of the grip profile data with preset grip profile data for the pitch type of the pitch; and providing an assessment of the softball grip profile based on the comparison.
Corbeil discloses systems and methods for assessing handling of a sports ball, wherein Corbeil discloses arranging pressure sensors as a plurality of petal-shaped panels [In FIG. 7, one or more pressure sensors 716 may be arranged to form a (e.g., one/single) sensor panel 720. The sensor array 730 may comprise one or more sensor panels 720, for example six sensor panels 720 as illustrated in FIG. 7, among other scenarios. For example, one or more panels 720 may be combined to form the sensor array 730 which may be disposed over/on and/or adjacent to the air bladder 424, air bladder 4424, and/or air bladder 4624 to create a (e.g., complete) sensor skin (not shown) (Corbeil ¶0077, Fig. 7), wherein the sensor panels 720 are considered to be “petal-shaped” based on Applicant’s Figs. 14-15]. Corbeil further discloses performing analysis of the user’s grip of the sports ball based on measurements by the pressure sensors and visualization of real-time and/or historical data in order to allow for aggregate analysis and/or post-practice review of the user’s grip [The computing device 104 may be configured to determine one or more handling value(s) 42, perhaps for example based on one or more of the plurality of force values 46 for qualitative determination of an interaction/use/engagement with the sport ball 12, sport ball 412, sport ball 4412, and/or sport ball 4612, such as catching, rebounding, hitting, blocking, throwing, and/or handling to name just some non-limiting examples (Corbeil ¶0082); Any of the techniques using one or more of the sport ball 12, sport ball 412, sport ball 4412, and/or sport ball 4612 may provide a qualitative score and/or other calculation of a user's or player's grip, catch, and/or other handling behavior and/or technique, perhaps for example based on determination of force, time, and/or position of contact by the player or user (Corbeil ¶0086); a grip event between the two paired pressure sensors 16 and/or 716 may be considered valid, may be scored, and/or may be reported to the sport ball user (Corbeil ¶0102); In one or more techniques, the Grip Score may integrate strength, timing, and/or handling technique. In one or more techniques, strength, timing, and/or handling technique may be measured and/or displayed independently (Corbeil ¶0109); In one or more techniques, pressure sensor 16 and/or 716 channel output for any of the sport balls described herein may be measured and/or displayed. FIG. 15 illustrates an example of a display (e.g., real-time and/or historical) of pressure sensor channel (e.g., activation) output signals (e.g., measured forces) for one or more, or each, pressure sensor 16 and/or 716 for any of the sport balls described herein (Corbeil ¶0111].
Given the modified Greenwalt in view of DeBeliso teaches flexible film shaped such that the plurality of pressure sensors forms a sensor array that universally covers the periphery of the spherical core, 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 the method of Greenwalt in view of DeBeliso to employ the film comprising a plurality of petals, as Corbeil depicts a petal pattern as a known formation to achieve spherical coverage [Corbeil Fig. 7] and as this modification would amount to mere simple substitution of one known element for another with similar expected results [allow for coverage of a sphere] [MPEP § 2143(I)(B)].
Furthermore, based on the context of Greenwalt being directed towards the assessment and comparison of a user’s pitch of an instrumented ball with preset data for the pitch type of the pitch [Greenwalt ¶0072] and that certain pitches are known to include pressures applied to particular sections of the instrumented ball [For example, when a pitch grips a baseball, such as ball 100, a certain amount of pressure is applied to various sections of ball 100 depending on the type of pitch intended on being thrown (Greenwalt ¶0048)], 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 the method of Greenwalt in view of DeBeliso to employ implementing a comparison of the grip profile data with preset grip profile data for the pitch type of the pitch; and providing an assessment of the softball grip profile based on the comparison, so as to allow for review of the quality of the user’s grip over time, as Corbeil indicates that it would be useful to evaluate handling of an instrumented sports ball [Corbeil ¶¶0036, 0082, 0086].
Regarding claim 40, Greenwalt in view of DeBeliso and Corbeil teaches
The method of claim 39, further comprising:
obtaining, with the processor, pitch data captured during the pitch, the pitch data being indicative of a pitch track taken by the instrumented softball [Greenwalt ¶0049];
implementing a further comparison of the pitch data with preset pitch track data for a pitch type of the pitch [Greenwalt ¶0072]; and
providing the assessment comprises providing, with the processor, information regarding the further comparison [Greenwalt ¶0073].
Regarding claim 41, Greenwalt in view of DeBeliso and Corbeil teaches
The method of claim 39.
However, Greenwalt in view of DeBeliso and Corbeil as presently modified fail to explicitly disclose wherein providing the assessment of the softball grip profile comprises determining an effort of muscular exertion during the pitch.
DeBeliso discloses determining an effort of muscular exertion [DeBeliso ¶¶0023, 0052, wherein assessing the functionality of individual fingers is considered to read on “determining an effort of muscular exertion” based on the Applicant’s disclosure at ¶0034 of the instant specification defining “quantifying the effort of musculature” as mapping the force applied by a certain muscle].
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 the method of Greenwalt in view of DeBeliso and Corbeil to employ wherein providing the assessment of the softball grip profile comprises determining an effort of muscular exertion during the pitch, so as to provide additional contextual information regarding grip capability/capacity of individual fingers.
Regarding claim 42, Greenwalt in view of DeBeliso and Corbeil teaches
The method of claim 39, wherein the stitch laces are aligned with the plurality of pressure sensors [wherein the film being shaped such that the pressure sensors form a sensor array that universally covers the periphery of the spherical core as taught by the § 103 modification above is considered to include the plurality of pressure sensors being aligned with the stitch laces].
Regarding claim 45, Greenwalt in view of DeBeliso and Corbeil teaches
The method of claim 39, wherein the spherical core, the film, the plurality of pressure sensors, and the circuit are configured such that the grip assessment device has a weight of a softball [Greenwalt ¶0033].
Claim(s) 37 and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenwalt in view of DeBeliso and Corbeil, as applied to claims 20 and 39 above, in further view of in view of Grogan (US-20060252600-A1, previously presented).
Regarding claim 37, Greenwalt in view of DeBeliso and Corbeil teaches
The method of claim 20.
However, Greenwalt in view of DeBeliso and Corbeil fails to explicitly disclose wherein providing the assessment of the baseball grip profile comprises determining an effort of flexor wad exertion during the pitch.
Grogan discloses systems for assessing grip strength [The equipment used is a hand grip dynamometer; Jamar Hydraulic hand grip dynamometer; BTE-Primus grip tool; Rolyan hydraulic dynamometer; Smedley Handgrip dynamometer; and TTM hand grip dynamometer (Grogan ¶0061)], wherein Grogan discloses that a measure of grip strength is considered to be indicative of the exertion of forearm muscles [Key areas of upper body fitness include strength and endurance of grip (wrist and forearm)… The grip test has been shown to be a valid measure of muscular strength that has been shown to have a high correlation with traditional strength measures of chest press and elbow flexion strength (r=0.672) and may even give an approximation of total body muscle strength (Grogan ¶0060); The grip test measures strength specifically for the forearm flexors. It can also provide an indication of over all upper body strength (Grogan ¶0064), wherein the Examiner notes that the Applicant refers to the forearm muscles with the term “flexor wad” (see Applicant’s Specification ¶0035)].
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 the method of Greenwalt in view of DeBeliso and Corbeil to employ determining an effort of flexor wad exertion during the pitch as part of providing the assessment of the baseball grip profile, as a grip test is considered to be defined by a measure of forearm flexors, and is further considered to provide an indication of overall upper body strength [Grogan ¶0066].
Regarding claim 44, Greenwalt in view of DeBeliso and Corbeil teaches
The method of claim 39.
However, Greenwalt in view of DeBeliso and Corbeil fail to explicitly disclose wherein providing the assessment of the softball grip profile comprises determining an effort of flexor wad exertion during the pitch.
Grogan discloses systems for assessing grip strength [Grogan ¶0061], wherein Grogan discloses that a measure of grip strength is considered to be indicative of the exertion of forearm muscles [Grogan ¶¶0060, 0064, wherein the Examiner notes that the Applicant refers to the forearm muscles with the term “flexor wad” (see Applicant’s Specification ¶0035)].
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 the method of Greenwalt in view of DeBeliso and Corbeil to employ determining an effort of flexor wad exertion during the pitch as part of providing the assessment of the softball grip profile, as a grip test is considered to be defined by a measure of forearm flexors, and is further considered to provide an indication of overall upper body strength [Grogan ¶0066].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 5-12, filed 17 March 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 20, 39, and those dependent therefrom under § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Greenwalt (US-20160354665-A1, previously presented) in view of DeBeliso (US-20090025475-A1, previously presented) and Corbeil (US-20190091520-A1, previously presented) [see modifications and obviousness rationale in light of the teachings of Corbeil].
The Applicant asserts that [Argument A.1.] each of the cited references fails to disclose or suggest a film that includes a plurality of petals, let alone one with a plurality of pressure sensors disposed on the plurality of petals, wherein the Applicant notes that Greenwalt merely refers to how pressure sensors may be located beneath cover portions 102a-b or within an inner spherical portion 118 or an outer spherical portion 118 [Greenwalt ¶0048], and further fails to depict or reference the pressure sensors; DeBeliso depicts a rectangular sheet to accommodate sets of parallel electrodes [DeBeliso ¶0044] and the embodiment involving a ball-shaped transducer [DeBeliso Fig. 5] fails to depict a fabric substrate or imply the shape thereof; Corbeil discloses an arrangement of irregularly shaped sensor panels [Corbeil ¶0076-0077, Fig. 7] but does not disclose a film; and Grogan is merely directed towards a fitness action plan development method. The Applicant further notes that no teaching or suggestion is provided as to how the rectilinear grid of DeBeliso would be accommodated or implemented in connection with a plurality of petals and instead of trying to accommodate a rectilinear grid; Corbeil adopts a different approach [differently shaped sensors] that leads to further differences and undesirable outcomes involving the relative positioning of stitch laces and pressure sensors; and DeBeliso fails to recognize the desirability of changing the shape of the fabric to accommodate the spherical surface of the ball-shaped transducer, such that the ball-shaped transducer may not be covered universally. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument, as the Examiner notes that the cited DeBeliso reference, which was specifically applied to teach the limitations directed towards a “film disposed along the periphery of the spherical core between the leather cover and the spherical core; wherein the plurality of pressure sensors are disposed the film; wherein the film is shaped such that film forms a sensor array that universally covers the periphery of the spherical core” [p. 6 of Non-Final Rejection dated 17 December 2025] is considered to disclose a film [DeBeliso ¶¶0043-0044, Figs. 3-4] that is configured to be disposed about a spherical core [DeBeliso Fig. 5], wherein reference to a “rectilinear grid” as argued by the Applicant is noted as being specifically with reference to a transducer body 11 that is shaped as a cylinder, such that as DeBeliso discloses a high-resolution tactile array that is configured to be wrapped about a spherical transducer body [DeBeliso Fig. 5] to provide clear assessment of the functional capability/capacity of the fingers, palm, and phalanges [DeBeliso ¶¶0021-0023, wherein the Examiner notes that high-resolution array refers to spacing of the sensors and not specifically a rectilinear grid] is considered to define a film disposed along the periphery of a spherical core, wherein the plurality of pressure sensors are disposed on the film, and the film is shaped such that the film forms a sensor array that universally covers the spherical core. Furthermore, Corbeil is considered to disclose shapes that may be employed to achieve a spherically shaped sensor array [Corbeil ¶0077, Fig. 7], wherein Corbeil is not applied to incorporate the particular position and arrangement of sensors as described in Corbeil, but merely to substitute a method for covering a sphere [spherical transducer body of DeBeliso] for a known method for covering a sphere [Corbeil Fig. 7]. In response to applicant’s argument that the modification by Corbeil would lead to undesirable outcomes involving the relative positioning of stitch laces and pressure sensors, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner further requests additional clarification and citation from DeBeliso regarding DeBeliso failing to accommodate a spherical surface to universally cover a ball-shaped transducer, as DeBeliso would appear to disclose otherwise [DeBeliso ¶0023].
The Applicant asserts that [Argument A.2.] each of the cited references fails to disclose or suggest a comparison with preset grip profile data for a pitch type, wherein the Applicant notes that Greenwalt instead describes comparisons for IMU data, but merely uses the pressure data to determine a release point for the ball to trigger capturing positioning information [Greenwalt ¶¶0048-0049, 0072]; DeBeliso merely describes grip force maps [DeBeliso ¶¶0046-0047]; Corbeil generally describes qualitative determinations and scoring without reference to preset data, much less preset grip profile data, and wherein the Applicant notes that the scoring of Corbeil does not mention present grip data and may merely compare threshold magnitudes [Corbeil ¶¶0082, 0102]. The Applicant further notes that it would not be obvious to modify the cited references to incorporate a comparison with preset grip data for a pitch type because none of the references recognizes the desirability of such a comparison. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument and notes that in response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner notes that as Greenwalt suggests that pitch types have particular grip maps [Greenwalt ¶0048] and is generally directed towards the assessment and comparison of a user’s pitch against stored data of the type of pitch [Greenwalt ¶0072], and as Corbeil is directed towards assessing and comparing a user’s handling of an instrumented ball at least historically over time to evaluate how the user handles the ball [see at least Corbeil ¶¶0036, 0086, 0111, wherein the Examiner notes that at least ¶0036 of Corbeil notes utility in evaluating handling of a sports ball], the combination of Greenwalt, as modified by Corbeil, is considered to render the argued limitation obvious. The Examiner further notes that “preset grip profile data for a type of pitch” is not particular regarding the types of pitches, such that any handling or grip of the instrumented ball may be considered a “pitch type”.
The Applicant asserts that [Argument A.3.] each of the cited references fails to disclose or suggest stitch laces of a leather cover disposed in accordance with positions of a plurality of pressure sensors, wherein the Applicant notes that Greenwalt fails to address the positioning of the sensors around the ball relative to certain layers or peripheral locations of the sensors, much less how much of the periphery is covered, or whether such positioning takes into account where the stitch laces are disposed, and wherein reference to Greenwalt disclosing detecting “where and how much pressure the user has applied to ball 100” [Greenwalt ¶0048] does not teach or suggest otherwise. DeBeliso, Corbeil, and Grogan fail to reference stitch laces. The Applicant further notes that the Examiner’s analysis of Greenwalt is improper, as ¶0048 of Greenwalt does not state or imply that the pressure sensors are “configured to detect wherever the user has applied pressure to the ball” [p. 6 of Non-Final Rejection dated 17 December 2025] and instead refers to detecting pressure in various sections of the ball, such that such sections may not include the positions of stitch laces; wherein the Examiner’s rejections rely upon an improper construction of the claim limitation, as even if the sensors can detect “wherever” pressure is applied, that feature does not teach or suggest that the stitch laces are disposed in accordance with the positions of a plurality of pressure sensors; and that it would not be obvious to modify the cited references to incorporate stitch laces disposed as claimed as none of the cited references recognizes the desirability of such positioning. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument, as the Examiner notes that for the pressure sensors of Greenwalt to be able to determine “where” the user has applied pressure to the ball 100, is considered to read on the pressure sensors of Greenwalt being applied to enough of the periphery of the ball 100 to achieve universal coverage in order to determine where on the ball 100 the user has applied pressure [The pressure sensors are operable to detect when the user has applied pressure, when the user removes pressure, and/or where and how much pressure the user has applied to ball 100 (Greenwalt ¶0048)]. The Examiner further notes that the Applicant’s argument that Greenwalt only teaches detecting pressure in various “sections” of the ball 100 is improper analysis of Greenwalt, as Greenwalt refers to the various “sections” to describe how certain pitches affect how the user may grip the ball, as opposed to employing pressure sensors to only detect pressure in a section of the ball. As such, as Greenwalt specifically discloses that the ball 100 comprises stitches 104 and that the pressure sensors are configured to detect where on the ball 100 pressure has been applied, Greenwalt is considered to teach the argued limitations.
The Applicant asserts that [Argument B] the proposed combination of references would result in stitch laces not disposed in accordance with the positions of the plurality of sensors as claimed, as the Applicant asserts that the incorporation of the sensor arrangement of Fig. 7 of Corbeil into Greenwalt in view of DeBeliso would necessitate replacing the electrode grid of DeBeliso with the sensor arrangement of Corbeil, wherein the large sizes and irregular shapes of the sensors in Corbeil would preclude the stitch laces from being disposed in accordance with the sensor positions. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument, as the Examiner notes that in reference to the argued limitations, DeBeliso was only specifically cited to teach positioning pressure sensors on a film, and Corbeil was only specifically cited to teach a known shape to employ spherical coverage, as opposed to employing the sensors of Corbeil, such that in combination, Greenwalt in view of DeBeliso and Corbeil is considered teach the argued limitations.
The Applicant asserts that [Argument C] the “design choice” rationale provided in support of the proposed combination is misplaced, as the Applicant asserts that an advantage and purpose of the shape of the film is provide in ¶¶0048, 0098, and Fig. 14 of the instant application, as the flexible film is shaped to achieve universal or substantial coverage of a spherical periphery. However, the Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 20 and 39 regarding the design choice rationale motivation have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any motivation applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The Examiner notes that the modification by Corbeil is considered obvious as noted above, as Corbeil depicts a petal pattern as a known formation to achieve spherical coverage [Corbeil Fig. 7] and as a matter of mere simple substitution of one known element for another with similar expected results [allow for coverage of a sphere].
The Applicant asserts that [Argument D] the motivation to combine the cited references is lacking, as the Applicant asserts that modifying the sensor grid of DeBeliso with the sensor arrangement of Corbeil would entirely abandon the electrode-grid approach of DeBeliso and change the principle of operation of DeBeliso and require a substantial reconstruction and redesign. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument for reasons as described above regarding what DeBeliso and Corbeil are specifically cited for in the modification of Greenwalt. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that Greenwalt merely defines the high-resolution array as having sensors being spaced a certain distance from each other, wherein the rectilinear grid as depicted in Figs. 3-4 is considered to be with respect to the particular application of a cylindrical transducer body.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEVERO ANTONIO P LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 EST.
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 Marmor II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/SEVERO ANTONIO P LOPEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights