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 .
Response to Amendment
This is a Final Office action in response to communications filed on January
6, 2026. Applicant amended claims 1-2, 4-6, 11-12, and 14-15. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each objection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated August 6, 2025. Therefore, Examiner withdraws the claim objections. Claims 1-6 and 9-22 remain pending in this application.
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 1-6 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Does the claimed invention fall inside one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter)? Yes
Claims 1-6 and 9-22 are drawn to a kinetic motion learning system (i.e., manufacture).
Step 2A - Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon)? Yes
Claim 1 recites:
a kinetic motion learning device connected to the pitching machine and the projector, wherein the kinetic motion learning device comprises a processor configured to execute a method comprising:
storing in advance a video of a pitching motion of the pitcher on a potential opponent team as viewed from a home plate direction for a plurality of pitches actually delivered by the pitcher (hereinafter referred to as "pitching motion video") and information for the pitching machine to launch the ball with substantially an identical motion as a ball thrown by the pitching motion (hereinafter referred to as "pitching trajectory information"),
and retrieving a set of the pitching motion video and the pitching trajectory information,
outputting the retrieved pitching motion video to the projector,
outputting the pitching trajectory information being read to the pitching machine,
and controlling a motion timing of the projector and the pitching machine so that a time of ball release of the pitcher in the pitching motion video displayed on the screen
and a time of the pitching machine launching the ball with the pitching trajectory information match,
projecting, by the projector, the pitching motion video onto the screen so that the pitching motion video is displayed on the screen at a motion timing controlled by the kinetic motion learning device.
These steps amount to a form of mental process and organizing human activity (i.e., an abstract idea) because a human can teach a batter how to recognize pitch types and pitch speeds to make the necessary batting adjustments that facilitate successfully hitting the baseball. Applicant of claimed invention indicates that “the kinetic motion learning device … is … configured by loading a … program on a … computer including a central processing unit (CPU), a main storage device (random access memory (RAM)), and the like.” [0021]
Independent claims 2 and 6 describe nearly identical steps as claim 1 (and therefore recite limitations that fall within this subject matter of grouping abstract ideas), and these claims are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Dependent claims 3-5 and 9-22 are directed towards mini-tasks (reading and outputting pitching motion videos and trajectory information) for estimating learning effect. Each claim amounts to a form of collecting, generating, and analyzing information, and therefore falls within the scope of a method for organizing human activity, (i.e., an abstract idea). As such, the Examiner concludes that claims 1, 2, and 6 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception? No
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using a processor and a main storage device (independent claims 1, 2 and 6 and dependent claims 3-5 and 9-22) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Similarly, the limitations of an apparatus using a processor and a main storage device (independent claims 1, 2, and 6 and dependent claims 3-5 and 9-22) are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Use of a computer, processor, memory or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the additional limitations beyond the abstract idea identified above, serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, they serve to limit the application of the abstract idea to a computerized environment (e.g., identifying and displaying, etc.) performed by a computing device, processor, and memory, etc. This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined "an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer". These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims 3-5 and 9-22 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective independent claim (i.e., they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? i.e., Are there any additional elements (features/limitations/step) recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea? No
In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an “inventive concept.” An “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong Two”, the identified additional elements in independent claims 1, 2, and 6 and dependent claims 3-5 and 9-22 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also show that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer and/or append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity) and/or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 3-5 and 9-22 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective independent claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Therefore, claims 1-6 and claims 9-22 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable under US 20190255419 A1 (“Reilly”)
In regards to claim 2, Reilly discloses
a kinetic motion learning system for a batter to learn, in a game in which the batter hits a ball thrown by a pitcher upon selection of one of a plurality of pitching attributes, a habit of a pitching motion for each of the plurality of pitching attributes of the pitcher, the kinetic motion learning system comprising ([0111], “embodiments … provide a trail … of the pitch's flight path … shown from the batter's perspective so that the batter may learn to identify one pitch type from another”): a processor configured to execute a method comprising ([0009], “The system comprises … one or more processors”): displaying, using a head-mounted display a three-dimensional video ([0019], “FIG. 6 is a side, perspective view of a user wearing a virtual reality head-mounted display showing a virtual reality environment.”);
connecting a kinetic motion learning device to the head-mounted display ([0070], “one or more embodiments may provide training systems and methods for … baseball … Embodiments described herein may employ head mounted displays”);
storing, by the kinetic motion learning device in advance a three-dimensional video (hereinafter referred to as “continuous three-dimensional video”) obtained by making continuous a three-dimensional video of the pitching motion and the three-dimensional video generated by computer graphics of a ball having substantially an identical motion as the ball thrown by the pitching motion, for a plurality of pitches actually delivered by the pitcher on a potential opponent team;
reading, by the kinetic motion learning device, the continuous three-dimensional video ([0109], “The pitcher … may be … created by … real-life movements of said pitcher from stored video of past pitching performances … The pitcher … may … be a digitized avatar of a real-life pitcher with movements created by animating the body joints of said avatar through techniques known as key-framing or motion capture.”);
outputting the continuous three-dimensional video being read to the head-mounted display, in which the head-mounted display includes an adjusting mechanism to adjust size of the continuous three-dimensional video ([0019], “FIG. 6 is a side, perspective view of a user wearing a virtual reality head-mounted display showing a virtual reality environment.” Examiner notes that a head-mounted display device can include mechanisms to adjust the video size and view.);
and causing the head-mounted display to present the continuous three-dimensional video ([0088], “FIGS. 19-23 are front, perspective views of a user interacting with a virtual reality environment 1101. In one or more embodiments, the user may be wearing a head mounted display … in an immersive virtual reality environment”).
In regards to claim 10, Reilly discloses
the processor further configured to execute a method comprising ([0009], “The system comprises … one or more processors”): sequentially reading and outputting a set of the pitching motion video and the pitching trajectory information, or the continuous three-dimensional video, for a plurality of pitches of one pitch type of the pitcher ([0011], “A user device … may be coupled to the processor … in the … embodiment … the user device … maybe a … projection room with the projection system … projecting generated virtual reality scene segments … Once a pitch is thrown, some embodiments will provide a trail … of the pitch's flight path (… placed along the pitch's trajectory) … so that the batter may learn to identify one pitch type from another based on the pitch trajectory”).
In regards to claim 11, Reilly discloses
the processor further configured to execute the method comprising ([0009], “The system comprises … one or more processors”): sequentially reading and outputting, in a predetermined pitch type sequence, a set of the pitching motion video and the pitching trajectory information, or the continuous three-dimensional video, for a plurality of pitches of respective two or more pitch types of the pitcher ([0113], “The pitcher's profile data … includes … each pitch type (including … seam fastball, … change of speed, curveball, sinker, slider, split finger fastball, cut fastball, and knuckleball) that the pitcher has thrown and has been recorded along with a range of speed for each pitch type, the release point of each pitch type, trajectory paths … a user may input into the system a setting which repeats the same pitch type over different parts of the strike zone”).
In regards to claim 12, Reilly discloses
the processor further configured to execute the method comprising ([0009], “The system comprises … one or more processors”): reading and outputting, in a random sequence, a set of the pitching motion video and the pitching trajectory information, or the continuous three-dimensional video, for a plurality of pitches of respective two or more pitch types of the pitcher ([0113], “The pitcher's profile data … includes … each pitch type (including … seam fastball, … change of speed, curveball, sinker, slider, split finger fastball, cut fastball, and knuckleball) that the pitcher has thrown and has been recorded along with a range of speed for each pitch type, the release point of each pitch type, trajectory paths … the user may ask for random pitch types thrown so that he can learn to recognize and distinguish one pitch type from another.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9, 13-16, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable under Reilly in view of US 20180311554 A1 (“Danis”), and CA 2485674 C (“Suba”).
In regards to claim 1, Reilly discloses the following limitations with the exception
of the underlined limitations.
a kinetic motion learning system for a batter to learn, in a game in which the batter hits a ball thrown by a pitcher upon selection of one of a plurality of pitching attributes, a habit of a pitching motion for each of the plurality of pitching attributes of the pitcher, the kinetic motion learning system comprising ([0111], “embodiments … provide a trail … of the pitch's flight path … shown from the batter's perspective so that the batter may learn to identify one pitch type from another”): a home plate defined by rules of the game;
a batter's box defined by the rules of the game ([0109], “The surrounding environment may include … batters' boxes”);
a pitching machine disposed in a position of a pitcher's rubber defined by the rules of the game ([0109], “The surrounding environment may include … the pitching mound” Examiner notes that the pitcher’s rubber is a slab of rubber embedded within the pitching mound.);
a screen disposed adjacent to a home plate side of the pitching machine;
a projector configured to project onto the screen ([0064], “projectors project images to the walls, ceiling, and floor”);
and a kinetic motion learning device connected to the pitching machine and the projector ([0011], “a … system comprises a projector and a graphics engine module connected to the projector”), wherein the kinetic motion learning device comprises a processor configured to execute a method comprising ([0009], “The system comprises … one or more processors”): storing in advance a video of a pitching motion of the pitcher on a potential opponent team as viewed from a home plate direction for a plurality of pitches actually delivered by the pitcher (hereinafter referred to as "pitching motion video") and information for the pitching machine to launch the ball with substantially an identical motion as a ball thrown by the pitching motion (hereinafter referred to as "pitching trajectory information");
retrieving a set of the pitching motion video and the pitching trajectory information ([0109], “The pitcher … may be a digitized avatar of a real-life pitcher with movements created by replicating real-life movements of said pitcher from stored video of past pitching performances.”), outputting the retrieved pitching motion video to the projector, outputting the pitching trajectory information being read to the pitching machine ([0011], “The graphics engine module is configured to: display a virtual reality environment from the projector… real-life pitching data for a selected real-life pitcher … real-life pitching data including a pitch type, a release point associated with the pitch type for the selected real-life pitcher, and a range of speeds associated with the pitch type for the selected real-life pitcher” Examiner notes that time of ball release is inherently available from the aforementioned speed (distance/time) data.), controlling a motion timing of the projector and the pitching machine so that a time of ball release of the pitcher in the pitching motion video displayed on the screen and a time of the pitching machine launching the ball with the pitching trajectory information match, projecting, by the projector, the pitching motion video onto the screen so that the pitching motion video is displayed on the screen at a motion timing controlled by the kinetic motion learning device, the screen includes a hole through which the ball launched by the pitching machine can pass at a position of ball release of the pitcher in the pitching motion video displayed, and the screen displays the pitching motion video projected by the projector, and the pitching machine is configured to launch the ball with the pitching trajectory information from the position of ball release of the pitcher in the pitching motion video displayed on the screen comprising a head-mounted display device ([0019], “FIG. 6 is a side, perspective view of a user wearing a virtual reality head-mounted display showing a virtual reality environment.”) at a motion timing controlled by the kinetic motion learning device ([0011], “projection system … is configured to: display … a release of a digital baseball from the release point associated with the pitch type for the … pitcher, the release of the digital baseball continuing in a simulated trajectory of a thrown pitch from the release point associated with the pitch type”), in which the head-mounted display device includes an adjusting mechanism to adjust size of the pitching motion video ([0019], “FIG. 6 is a side, perspective view of a user wearing a virtual reality head-mounted display showing a virtual reality environment.” Examiner notes that a head-mounted display device can include mechanisms to adjust the video size and view.).
Reilly does not disclose a home plate defined by rules of the game; a screen disposed adjacent to a home plate side of the pitching machine.
Danis discloses
a home plate defined by rules of the game ([0078], “rules engine … may include … location in the strike zone when crossing the plate”);
a screen disposed adjacent to a home plate side of the pitching machine ([0075], “the … screen … displays the selected pitcher throwing the pitch” Examiner notes that to display the pitcher, the screen can be adjacent or next to the home plate.).
Reilly and Danis are considered analogous to the claimed invention
because they are in the same field of virtual reality sports training systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a kinetic motion learning system for a batter to learn, in a game in which the batter hits a ball thrown by a pitcher upon selection of one of a plurality of pitching attributes, a habit of a pitching motion for each of the plurality of pitching attributes of the pitcher, the kinetic motion learning system comprising, a batter's box defined by the rules of the game, a pitching machine disposed in a position of a pitcher's rubber defined by the rules of the game, a projector configured to project onto the screen, and a kinetic motion learning device connected to the pitching machine and the projector, wherein the kinetic motion learning device comprises a processor configured to execute a method comprising, storing in advance a video of a pitching motion of a pitcher on a potential opponent team as viewed from a home plate direction for a plurality of pitches actually delivered by the pitcher (hereinafter referred to as "pitching motion video") and information for the pitching machine to launch a ball with substantially an identical motion as a ball thrown by the pitching motion (hereinafter referred to as "pitching trajectory information"), and retrieving a set of the pitching motion video and the pitching trajectory information, as disclosed by Reilly, a home plate defined by rules of the game, outputting the retrieved pitching motion video to the projector, outputting the pitching trajectory information being read to the pitching machine, and the pitching machine is configured to launch a ball with the pitching trajectory information from the position of ball release of the pitcher in the pitching motion video displayed on the screen at a motion timing controlled by the kinetic motion learning device, as disclosed by Danis, to provide a strike zone location rules engine and screen displays showing pitchers throwing pitches for a virtual reality baseball system.
Reilly does not disclose and controlling a motion timing of the projector and the pitching machine so that a time of ball release of the pitcher in the pitching motion video displayed on the screen and a time of the pitching machine launching the ball with the pitching trajectory information match, projecting, by the projector, the pitching motion video onto the screen so that the pitching motion video is displayed on the screen at a motion timing controlled by the kinetic motion learning device, and the screen includes a hole through which a ball launched by the pitching machine can pass at a position of ball release of the pitcher in the pitching motion video displayed, and the screen displays the pitching motion video projected by the projector.
Suba discloses
and controlling a motion timing of the projector and the pitching machine so that a time of ball release of the pitcher in the pitching motion video displayed on the screen and a time of the pitching machine launching the ball with the pitching trajectory information match (page 27, lines 15-17, “Control unit ... is able to display a variety of different images onto the projection screen ... by sending such images to the projector ... Such images may include, for example, images of different pitchers, advertising messages, and the like.”), projecting, by the projector, the pitching motion video onto the screen so that the pitching motion video is displayed on the screen at a motion timing controlled by the kinetic motion learning device (page 24, line 21 and page 25, lines 1-2, “The video projector ... is adapted to project a video image of an actual pitcher onto the projection screen, the showing of which is ... timed ... by the pitching machine”), and the screen includes a hole through which a ball launched by the pitching machine can pass at a position of ball release of the pitcher in the pitching motion video displayed, and the screen displays the pitching motion video projected by the projector (page 24, lines 11-13, “The projection screen ... includes a hole ... in the screen in alignment with the pitching machine ... to permit a ball thrown by the pitching machine ... to travel therethrough.”).
Reilly and Suba are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sports training aids. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a kinetic motion learning system for a batter to learn, in a game in which the batter hits a ball thrown by a pitcher upon selection of one of a plurality of pitching attributes, a habit of a pitching motion for each of the plurality of pitching attributes of the pitcher, the kinetic motion learning system comprising, a batter's box defined by the rules of the game, a pitching machine disposed in a position of a pitcher's rubber defined by the rules of the game, a projector configured to project onto the screen, and a kinetic motion learning device connected to the pitching machine and the projector, wherein the kinetic motion learning device comprises a processor configured to execute a method comprising, storing in advance a video of a pitching motion of a pitcher on a potential opponent team as viewed from a home plate direction for a plurality of pitches actually delivered by the pitcher (hereinafter referred to as "pitching motion video") and information for the pitching machine to launch a ball with substantially an identical motion as a ball thrown by the pitching motion (hereinafter referred to as "pitching trajectory information"), and retrieving a set of the pitching motion video and the pitching trajectory information, as disclosed by Reilly, and controlling a motion timing of the projector and the pitching machine so that a time of ball release of the pitcher in the pitching motion video displayed on the screen and a time of the pitching machine launching the ball with the pitching trajectory information match, projecting, by the projector, the pitching motion video onto the screen so that the pitching motion video is displayed on the screen at a motion timing controlled by the kinetic motion learning device, and the screen includes a hole through which a ball launched by the pitching machine can pass at a position of ball release of the pitcher in the pitching motion video displayed, and the screen displays the pitching motion video projected by the projector, as disclosed by Suba, to provide a display control unit, video projector, and projection screen with a hole for a mounting frame used in conjunction with a conversion kit for a conventional, combination baseball/softball pitching machine.
In regards to claim 3, Reilly discloses
the processor further configured to execute a method comprising ([0029], “The baseball training aid … includes a microprocessor”): sequentially reading and outputting a set of the pitching motion video and the pitching trajectory information, or the continuous three-dimensional video, for a plurality of pitches of one pitch type of the pitcher ([0111], “A user device … may be coupled to the processor … in the … embodiment … the user device … maybe a … projection room with the projection system … projecting generated virtual reality scene segments … Once a pitch is thrown, some embodiments will provide a trail … of the pitch's flight path (… placed along the pitch's trajectory) … so that the batter may learn to identify one pitch type from another based on the pitch trajectory”).
In regards to claim 4, Reilly discloses
the processor further configured to execute the method comprising ([0009], “The system comprises … one or more processors”): sequentially reading and outputting, in a predetermined pitch type sequence, a set of the pitching motion video and the pitching trajectory information, or the continuous three-dimensional video, for a plurality of pitches of respective two or more pitch types of the pitcher ([0113], “The pitcher's profile data … includes … each pitch type (including … seam fastball, … change of speed, curveball, sinker, slider, split finger fastball, cut fastball, and knuckleball) that the pitcher has thrown and has been recorded along with a range of speed for each pitch type, the release point of each pitch type, trajectory paths … a user may input into the system a setting which repeats the same pitch type over different parts of the strike zone”).
In regards to claim 5, Reilly discloses
the processor further configured to execute the method comprising ([0009], “The system comprises … one or more processors”): reading and outputting, in a random sequence, a set of the pitching motion video and the pitching trajectory information, or the continuous three-dimensional video, for a plurality of pitches of respective two or more pitch types of the pitcher ([0113], “The pitcher's profile data … includes … each pitch type (including … seam fastball, … change of speed, curveball, sinker, slider, split finger fastball, cut fastball, and knuckleball) that the pitcher has thrown and has been recorded along with a range of speed for each pitch type, the release point of each pitch type, trajectory paths … the user may ask for random pitch types thrown so that he can learn to recognize and distinguish one pitch type from another.”).
In regards to claim 6, Reilly discloses the following limitations with the exception
of the underlined limitations.
a kinetic motion learning system for a player to learn, in a game in which the player kinetically moves in response to a ball launched by an opponent player upon selection of one of a plurality of attributes, a habit of a motion of the opponent player for each of the plurality of attributes, the kinetic motion learning system comprising ([0111], “embodiments … provide a trail … of the pitch's flight path … shown from the batter's perspective so that the batter may learn to identify one pitch type from another”): a launching device disposed in a position within a range defined by rules of the game;
a screen disposed adjacent to a user side of the launching device;
a projector configured to project onto the screen ([0064], “projectors project images to the walls, ceiling, and floor”);
and a kinetic motion learning device connected to the launching device and the projector ([0011], “a … system comprises a projector and a graphics engine module connected to the projector”), the kinetic motion learning device comprises a processor configured to execute a method comprising ([0009], “The system comprises … one or more processors”): associating and storing in advance a video of a motion of an opponent player on a potential opponent team launching a ball as viewed from a direction of the user for a plurality of times when the opponent player actually launches a ball (hereinafter referred to as “opponent player motion video”) and information for the launching device to launch a ball with substantially an identical motion as a ball launched by the motion (hereinafter referred to as “ball trajectory information”), reading a set of the opponent player motion video and the ball trajectory information ([0109], “The pitcher … may be a digitized avatar of a real-life pitcher with movements created by replicating real-life movements of said pitcher from stored video of past pitching performances.”), outputting the opponent player motion video being read to the projector, output the ball trajectory information being read to the launching device ([0011], “The graphics engine module is configured to: display a virtual reality environment from the projector… real-life pitching data for a selected real-life pitcher … real-life pitching data including a pitch type, a release point associated with the pitch type for the selected real-life pitcher, and a range of speeds associated with the pitch type for the selected real-life pitcher” Examiner notes that time of ball release is inherently available from the aforementioned speed (distance/time) data.), controlling a motion timing of the projector and the launching device so that a time of the opponent player launching the ball in the opponent player motion video displayed on the screen and a time of the launching device launching the ball with the ball trajectory information match, projecting, by the projector the opponent player motion video onto the screen so that the opponent player motion video is displayed on the screen at the motion timing controlled by the kinetic motion learning device, the screen includes a hole through which the ball launched by the launching device can pass at a position where the opponent player launches the ball in the opponent player motion video displayed, and the screen displays the opponent player motion video projected by the projector, and launching, by the launching device, a ball with the ball trajectory information from the position where the opponent player launches the ball in the opponent player motion video displayed on the screen comprising a head-mounted display device ([0019], “FIG. 6 is a side, perspective view of a user wearing a virtual reality head-mounted display showing a virtual reality environment.”) at the motion timing controlled by the kinetic motion learning device ([0011], “projection system … is configured to: display … a release of a digital baseball from the release point associated with the pitch type for the … pitcher, the release of the digital baseball continuing in a simulated trajectory of a thrown pitch from the release point associated with the pitch type”), in which the head-mounted display deice includes an adjusting mechanism to adjust size of the opponent player motion video ([0019], “FIG. 6 is a side, perspective view of a user wearing a virtual reality head-mounted display showing a virtual reality environment.” Examiner notes that a head-mounted display device can include mechanisms to adjust the video size and view.).
Reilly does not disclose a launching device disposed in a position within a range defined by rules of the game, a screen disposed adjacent to a user side of the launching device.
Danis discloses
a launching device disposed in a position within a range defined by rules of the game ([0078]-[0079], “rules engine … may … cause the pitch to be … within the range … rules … may be part of a pitch model that the system will use to generate the pitch”);
a screen disposed adjacent to a user side of the launching device ([0075], “the … screen … displays the selected pitcher throwing the pitch” Examiner notes that to display the pitcher, the screen can be adjacent to the user’s side.).
Reilly and Danis are considered analogous to the claimed invention
because they are in the same field of virtual reality sports training systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a kinetic motion learning system for a player to learn, in a game in which the player kinetically moves in response to a ball launched by an opponent player upon selection of one of a plurality of attributes, a habit of a motion of the opponent player for each of the plurality of attributes, the kinetic motion learning system comprising, a projector configured to project onto the screen, and a kinetic motion learning device connected to the pitching machine and the projector, the kinetic motion learning device comprises a processor configured to execute a method comprising, associating and storing in advance a video of a motion of an opponent player on a potential opponent team launching a ball as viewed from a direction of the user for a plurality of times when the opponent player actually launches a ball (hereinafter referred to as “opponent player motion video”) and information for the launching device to launch a ball with substantially an identical motion as a ball launched by the motion (hereinafter referred to as “ball trajectory information”), and reading a set of the opponent player motion video and the ball trajectory information, outputting the opponent player motion video being read to the projector, output the ball trajectory information being read to the launching device, and launching, by the launching device, a ball with the ball trajectory information from the position where the opponent player launches the ball in the opponent player motion video displayed on the screen at a motion timing controlled by the kinetic motion learning device, as disclosed by Reilly, a launching device disposed in a position within a range defined by rules of the game, and a screen disposed adjacent to a user side of the launching device, as disclosed by Danis, to provide a range rules engine that is part of a pitch model and a screen that displays a pitcher throwing a pitch for a virtual reality baseball system.
Reilly does not disclose and controlling a motion timing of the projector and the launching device so that a time of the opponent player launching the ball in the opponent player motion video displayed on the screen and a time of the launching device launching the ball with the ball trajectory information match, projecting, by the projector the opponent player motion video onto the screen so that the opponent player motion video is displayed on the screen at a motion timing controlled by the kinetic motion learning device, the screen includes a hole through which a ball launched by the launching device can pass at a position where the opponent player launches the ball in the opponent player motion video displayed, and the screen displays the opponent player motion video projected by the projector.
Suba discloses
and controlling a motion timing of the projector and the launching device so that a time of the opponent player launching the ball in the opponent player motion video displayed on the screen (page 27, lines 15-17, “Control unit ... is able to display a variety of different images onto the projection screen ... by sending such images to the projector ... Such images may include, for example, images of different pitchers, advertising messages, and the like.”), projecting, by the projector the opponent player motion video onto the screen so that the opponent player motion video is displayed on the screen at a motion timing controlled by the kinetic motion learning device (page 24, line 21 and page 25, lines 1-2, “The video projector ... is adapted to project a video image of an actual pitcher onto the projection screen, the showing of which is ... timed ... by the pitching machine”), the screen includes a hole through which a ball launched by the launching device can pass at a position where the opponent player launches the ball in the opponent player motion video displayed, and the screen displays the opponent player motion video projected by the projector, (page 24, lines 11-13, “The projection screen ... includes a hole ... in the screen in alignment with the pitching machine ... to permit a ball thrown by the pitching machine ... to travel therethrough.”).
Reilly and Suba are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sports training aids. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a kinetic motion learning system for a player to learn, in a game in which the player kinetically moves in response to a ball launched by an opponent player upon selection of one of a plurality of attributes, a habit of a motion of the opponent player for each of the plurality of attributes, the kinetic motion learning system comprising, a projector configured to project onto the screen, and a kinetic motion learning device connected to the pitching machine and the projector, the kinetic motion learning device comprises a processor configured to execute a method comprising, associating and storing in advance a video of a motion of an opponent player on a potential opponent team launching a ball as viewed from a direction of the user for a plurality of times when the opponent player actually launches a ball (hereinafter referred to as “opponent player motion video”) and information for the launching device to launch a ball with substantially an identical motion as a ball launched by the motion (hereinafter referred to as “ball trajectory information”), and reading a set of the opponent player motion video and the ball trajectory information, outputting the opponent player motion video being read to the projector, output the ball trajectory information being read to the launching device, and launching, by the launching device, a ball with the ball trajectory information from the position where the opponent player launches the ball in the opponent player motion video displayed on the screen at a motion timing controlled by the kinetic motion learning device, as disclosed by Reilly, and controlling a motion timing of the projector and the launching device so that a time of the opponent player launching the ball in the opponent player motion video displayed on the screen, projecting, by the projector the opponent player motion video onto the screen so that the opponent player motion video is displayed on the screen at a motion timing controlled by the kinetic motion learning device, the screen includes a hole through which a ball launched by the launching device can pass at a position where the opponent player launches the ball in the opponent player motion video displayed, and the screen displays the opponent player motion video projected by the projector, as disclosed by Suba, to provide a display control unit, video projector, and projection screen with a hole for a mounting frame used in conjunction with a conversion kit for a conventional, combination baseball/softball pitching machine.
In regards to claim 9, Reilly discloses
wherein the pitching or the opponent player motion video is based on the habit of a motion of the pitcher or the opponent player ([0112], “The selected pitcher's profile includes video footage of the pitcher's delivery and general body movements that are part of the delivery.”):
In regards to claim 13, Reilly discloses
the processor further configured to execute a method comprising ([0029], “The baseball training aid … includes a microprocessor”): sequentially reading and outputting a set of the pitching motion video and the pitching trajectory information, or the continuous three-dimensional video, for a plurality of pitches of one pitch type of the pitcher ([0111], “A user device … may be coupled to the processor … in the … embodiment … the user device … maybe a … projection room with the projection system … projecting generated virtual reality scene segments … Once a pitch is thrown, some embodiments will provide a trail … of the pitch's flight path (… placed along the pitch's trajectory) … so that the batter may learn to identify one pitch type from another based on the pitch trajectory”).
In regards to claim 14, Reilly discloses
the processor further configured to execute the method comprising ([0009], “The system comprises … one or more processors”): sequentially reading and outputting, in a predetermined pitch type sequence, a set of the pitching motion video and the pitching trajectory information, or the continuous three-dimensional video, for a plurality of pitches of respective two or more pitch types of the pitcher ([0113], “The pitcher's profile data … includes … each pitch type (including … seam fastball, … change of speed, curveball, sinker, slider, split finger fastball, cut fastball, and knuckleball) that the pitcher has thrown and has been recorded along with a range of speed for each pitch type, the release point of each pitch type, trajectory paths … a user may input into the system a setting which repeats the same pitch type over different parts of the strike zone”).
In regards to claim 15, Reilly discloses
the processor further configured to execute the method comprising ([0009], “The system comprises … one or more processors”): reading and outputting, in a random sequence, a set of the pitching motion video and the pitching trajectory information, or the continuous three-dimensional video, for a plurality of pitches of respective two or more pitch types of the pitcher ([0113], “The pitcher's profile data … includes … each pitch type (including … seam fastball, … change of speed, curveball, sinker, slider, split finger fastball, cut fastball, and knuckleball) that the pitcher has thrown and has been recorded along with a range of speed for each pitch type, the release point of each pitch type, trajectory paths … the user may ask for random pitch types thrown so that he can learn to recognize and distinguish one pitch type from another.”).
In regards to claim 21, Reilly discloses
wherein the pitching or the opponent player motion video is based on the habit of a motion of the pitcher or the opponent player ([0112], “The selected pitcher's profile includes video footage of the pitcher's delivery and general body movements that are part of the delivery.”).
In regards to claim 22, Reilly discloses
wherein the pitching or the opponent player motion video is based on the habit of a motion of the pitcher or the opponent player ([0112], “The selected pitcher's profile includes video footage of the pitcher's delivery and general body movements that are part of the delivery.”).
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable under Reilly in view of Danis, Suba, and US 20190209909 A1 (“Thornbrue”).
In regards to claim 16, Reilly does not disclose wherein the opponent player motion video includes the opponent player throwing the ball toward the player.
Thornbrue discloses
wherein the opponent player motion video includes the opponent player throwing the ball toward the player ([0134], “video data may be applied to movements such as … a baseball pitch or throw”).
Reilly and Thornbrue are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sports training aids. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a kinetic motion learning system for a player to learn, in a game in which the player kinetically moves in response to a ball launched by an opponent player upon selection of one of a plurality of attributes, a habit of a motion of the opponent player for each of the plurality of attributes, the kinetic motion learning system comprising and the kinetic motion learning device comprises a processor configured to execute a method comprising, as disclosed by Reilly, wherein the opponent player motion video includes the opponent player kicking the ball toward the player as a penalty kick in playing soccer, as disclosed by Thornbrue, to provide baseball pitch video data for a system that measures a swing of a bat.
In regards to claim 17, Reilly does not disclose wherein the opponent player motion video includes the opponent player kicking the ball toward the player as a penalty kick in playing soccer.
Thornbrue discloses
wherein the opponent player motion video includes the opponent player kicking the ball toward the player as a penalty kick in playing soccer ([0134], “video data may be applied to movements such as … a soccer shot”).
Reilly and Thornbrue are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sports training aids. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a kinetic motion learning system for a player to learn, in a game in which the player kinetically moves in response to a ball launched by an opponent player upon selection of one of a plurality of attributes, a habit of a motion of the opponent player for each of the plurality of attributes, the kinetic motion learning system comprising and the kinetic motion learning device comprises a processor configured to execute a method comprising, as disclosed by Reilly, wherein the opponent player motion video includes the opponent player kicking the ball toward the player as a penalty kick in playing soccer, as disclosed by Thornbrue, to provide soccer shot video data for a system that measures a swing of a bat.
In regards to claim 18, Reilly does not disclose wherein the opponent player motion video includes the opponent player kicking the ball toward the player.
Thornbrue discloses
wherein the opponent player motion video includes the opponent player kicking the ball toward the player ([0134], “video data may be applied to movements such as … a soccer shot”).
Reilly and Thornbrue are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sports training aids. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a kinetic motion learning system for a player to learn, in a game in which the player kinetically moves in response to a ball launched by an opponent player upon selection of one of a plurality of attributes, a habit of a motion of the opponent player for each of the plurality of attributes, the kinetic motion learning system comprising and the kinetic motion learning device comprises a processor configured to execute a method comprising, as disclosed by Reilly, wherein the opponent player motion video includes the opponent player kicking the ball toward the player, as disclosed by Thornbrue, to provide soccer shot video data for a system that measures a swing of a bat.
In regards to claim 19, Reilly does not disclose wherein the opponent player motion video includes the opponent player hitting the ball with a tennis racket toward the player.
Thornbrue discloses
wherein the opponent player motion video includes the opponent player hitting the ball with a tennis racket toward the player ([0134], “video data may be applied to movements such as … a tennis racket swing”).
Reilly and Thornbrue are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sports training aids. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a kinetic motion learning system for a player to learn, in a game in which the player kinetically moves in response to a ball launched by an opponent player upon selection of one of a plurality of attributes, a habit of a motion of the opponent player for each of the plurality of attributes, the kinetic motion learning system comprising and the kinetic motion learning device comprises a processor configured to execute a method comprising, as disclosed by Reilly, wherein the opponent player motion video includes the opponent player hitting the ball with a tennis racket toward the player, as disclosed by Thornbrue, to provide tennis racket swing video data for a system that measures a swing of a bat.
In regards to claim 20, Reilly does not disclose wherein the opponent player motion video includes the opponent player hitting the ball toward the player as a serve in playing tennis.
Thornbrue discloses
wherein the opponent player motion video includes the opponent player hitting the ball toward the player as a serve in playing tennis ([0134], “video data may be applied to movements such as … a tennis racket swing”).
Reilly and Thornbrue are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sports training aids. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a kinetic motion learning system for a player to learn, in a game in which the player kinetically moves in response to a ball launched by an opponent player upon selection of one of a plurality of attributes, a habit of a motion of the opponent player for each of the plurality of attributes, the kinetic motion learning system comprising and the kinetic motion learning device comprises a processor configured to execute a method comprising, as disclosed by Reilly, wherein the opponent player motion video includes the opponent player hitting the ball toward the player as a serve in playing tennis, as disclosed by Thornbrue, to provide tennis racket swing video data for a system that measures a swing of a bat.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 6, 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant amended claims 1-2, 4-6, 11-12, and 14-15. Claims 1-6 and 9-22 remain pending in this application. With respect to “Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101”, Applicant argues “a human mind cannot practically perform ‘adjust size of the pitching motion on a head-mounted display device.’ Applying the rule in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), claim 1 does not fall into the grouping of mental process.” (See RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION OF AUGUST 06, 2025, REMARKS, Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Step 2A, Prong One - Claims do not Recites a Judicial Exception, page 11, paragraph 3). Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s remarks. As it relates to Step 2A, Prong One of 35 U.S.C. § 101, claim 1 recites a kinetic motion learning device connected to the pitching machine and the projector, wherein the kinetic motion learning device comprises a processor configured to execute a method comprising: storing in advance a video of a pitching motion of the pitcher on a potential opponent team as viewed from a home plate direction for a plurality of pitches actually delivered by the pitcher (hereinafter referred to as "pitching motion video") and information for the pitching machine to launch the ball with substantially an identical motion as a ball thrown by the pitching motion (hereinafter referred to as "pitching trajectory information"), and retrieving a set of the pitching motion video and the pitching trajectory information, outputting the retrieved pitching motion video to the projector, outputting the pitching trajectory information being read to the pitching machine,
and controlling a motion timing of the projector and the pitching machine so that a time of ball release of the pitcher in the pitching motion video displayed on the screen and a time of the pitching machine launching the ball with the pitching trajectory information match, projecting, by the projector, the pitching motion video onto the screen so that the pitching motion video is displayed on the screen at a motion timing controlled by the kinetic motion learning device. These steps amount to a form of mental process and organizing human activity (i.e., an abstract idea) because a human can teach a batter how to recognize pitch types and pitch speeds to make the necessary batting adjustments that facilitate successfully hitting the baseball. Applicant of claimed invention indicates that “the kinetic motion learning device … is … configured by loading a … program on a … computer including a central processing unit (CPU), a main storage device (random access memory (RAM)), and the like.” [0021] As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea and therefore, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
With respect to “Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101”, Applicant argues “amended claim 1 is still not directed to an abstract idea because amended claim 1 as a whole integrates the alleged judicial exceptions into a practical application (e.g., ‘the pitching machine is configured to launch the ball with the pitching trajectory information from the position of ball release of the pitcher in the pitching motion video displayed on the screen comprising a head-mounted display device at a motion timing controlled by the kinetic motion learning device, in which the head-mounted display device includes an adjusting mechanism to adjust size of the pitching motion video’).” (See RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION OF AUGUST 06, 2025, REMARKS, Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Step 2A, Prong Two – Integrated Into a Practical Application, page 11, paragraph 5 – page 12, lines 1-5). Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s remarks. As it relates to Step 2A, Prong Two of 35 U.S.C. § 101, the requirement to execute claim 1 using a head-mounted display device with an adjusting mechanism is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similarly, the limitation of a head-mounted display device with an adjusting mechanism is recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. This limitation does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the additional limitation beyond the abstract idea identified above, serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and to limit the application of the abstract idea to a computerized environment (e.g., identifying and displaying, etc.) performed by a computing device, processor, and memory, etc. This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined "an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer". These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
With respect to “Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101”, Applicant argues “amended claim 1 is directed to patent-eligible subject matter, because amended claim 1 recites features that do not fall into one of the enumerated groupings set forth in the 2019 PEG; and/or, because the features are integrated into a practical application; and/or, alternatively because amended claim 1 recites additional elements that are not well- understood, routine, or conventional in the field” (See RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION OF AUGUST 06, 2025, REMARKS, Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Step 2B – Inventive Concept, page 14, paragraph 2). Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s remarks. As it relates to Step 2B of 35 U.S.C. § 101, the identified additional element in independent claims 1, 2, and 6 and the respective dependent claims are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewing the additional limitations in combination also show that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer and/or append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity) and/or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Accordingly, claims 1-6 and claims 9-22 are directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, the rejections of claims 1-6 and claims 9-22 are maintained.
With respect to “Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102”, Applicant argues “The head mounted displays of Reilly, however, fails to teach or suggest ‘outputting the continuous three-dimensional video being read to the head-mounted display[[s]], in which the head-mounted display includes an adjusting mechanism to adjust size of continuous three-dimensional video’” (See RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION OF AUGUST 06, 2025, REMARKS, Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, page 15, paragraph 5 – page 16, line 1). Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s remarks. In regards to claim 2, Reilly discloses a kinetic motion learning system for a batter to learn, in a game in which the batter hits a ball thrown by a pitcher upon selection of one of a plurality of pitching attributes, a habit of a pitching motion for each of the plurality of pitching attributes of the pitcher, the kinetic motion learning system comprising ([0111], “embodiments … provide a trail … of the pitch's flight path … shown from the batter's perspective so that the batter may learn to identify one pitch type from another”): a processor configured to execute a method comprising ([0009], “The system comprises … one or more processors”): displaying, using a head-mounted display a three-dimensional video ([0019], “FIG. 6 is a side, perspective view of a user wearing a virtual reality head-mounted display showing a virtual reality environment.”); and connecting a kinetic motion learning device to the head-mounted display ([0070], “one or more embodiments may provide training systems and methods for … baseball … Embodiments described herein may employ head mounted displays”), storing, by the kinetic motion learning device in advance a three-dimensional video (hereinafter referred to as “continuous three-dimensional video”) obtained by making continuous a three-dimensional video of the pitching motion and the three-dimensional video generated by computer graphics of a ball having substantially an identical motion as the ball thrown by the pitching motion, for a plurality of pitches actually delivered by the pitcher on a potential opponent team, reading, by the kinetic motion learning device, the continuous three-dimensional video ([0109], “The pitcher … may be … created by … real-life movements of said pitcher from stored video of past pitching performances … The pitcher … may … be a digitized avatar of a real-life pitcher with movements created by animating the body joints of said avatar through techniques known as key-framing or motion capture.”), outputting the continuous three-dimensional video being read to the head-mounted display, in which the head-mounted display includes an adjusting mechanism to adjust size of the continuous three-dimensional video ([0019], “FIG. 6 is a side, perspective view of a user wearing a virtual reality head-mounted display showing a virtual reality environment.” Examiner notes that a head-mounted display device can include mechanisms to adjust the video size and view.); and causing the head-mounted display to present the continuous three-dimensional video ([0088], “FIGS. 19-23 are front, perspective views of a user interacting with a virtual reality environment 1101. In one or more embodiments, the user may be wearing a head mounted display … in an immersive virtual reality environment”).
MPEP § 2111 discusses proper claim interpretation, including giving claims their
broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) in light of the specification during
examination. Under BRI, the words of a claim must be given their plain meaning unless
such meaning is inconsistent with the specification, and it is improper to import claim
limitations from the specification into the claim. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the BRI is broader than what is argued. Therefore, the rejections of claim 2 and respective dependent claims 10-12, as anticipated by Reilly, are maintained.
With respect to “Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103”, Applicant argues “the Office Action failed to state a prima facie case of obviousness and/or the current amendments to the claims now render arguments in the Office Action moot” (See RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION OF AUGUST 06, 2025, REMARKS, Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, page 16, paragraph 4) and “Reilly fails to teach or suggest in particular, ‘the head- mounted display device includes an adjusting mechanism to adjust size of the pitching motion video.’” (See RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION OF AUGUST 06, 2025, REMARKS, Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, page 16, paragraph 7) and “Danis and Suba still fails to teach or suggest ‘the head-mounted display device includes an adjusting mechanism to adjust size of the pitching motion video’”. (See RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION OF AUGUST 06, 2025, REMARKS, Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, page 17, paragraph 2) Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s remarks. In regards to claim 1, Reilly discloses a kinetic motion learning system for a batter to learn, in a game in which the batter hits a ball thrown by a pitcher upon selection of one of a plurality of pitching attributes, a habit of a pitching motion for each of the plurality of pitching attributes of the pitcher, the kinetic motion learning system comprising ([0111], “embodiments … provide a trail … of the pitch's flight path … shown from the batter's perspective so that the batter may learn to identify one pitch type from another”): a batter's box defined by the rules of the game ([0109], “The surrounding environment may include … batters' boxes”); a pitching machine disposed in a position of a pitcher's rubber defined by the rules of the game ([0109], “The surrounding environment may include … the pitching mound” Examiner notes that the pitcher’s rubber is a slab of rubber embedded within the pitching mound.); a projector configured to project onto the screen ([0064], “projectors project images to the walls, ceiling, and floor”); and a kinetic motion learning device connected to the pitching machine and the projector ([0011], “a … system comprises a projector and a graphics engine module connected to the projector”), wherein the kinetic motion learning device comprises a processor configured to execute a method comprising ([0009], “The system comprises … one or more processors”): storing in advance a video of a pitching motion of the pitcher on a potential opponent team as viewed from a home plate direction for a plurality of pitches actually delivered by the pitcher (hereinafter referred to as "pitching motion video") and information for the pitching machine to launch the ball with substantially an identical motion as a ball thrown by the pitching motion (hereinafter referred to as "pitching trajectory information"), retrieving a set of the pitching motion video and the pitching trajectory information ([0109], “The pitcher … may be a digitized avatar of a real-life pitcher with movements created by replicating real-life movements of said pitcher from stored video of past pitching performances.”), outputting the retrieved pitching motion video to the projector, outputting the pitching trajectory information being read to the pitching machine ([0011], “The graphics engine module is configured to: display a virtual reality environment from the projector… real-life pitching data for a selected real-life pitcher … real-life pitching data including a pitch type, a release point associated with the pitch type for the selected real-life pitcher, and a range of speeds associated with the pitch type for the selected real-life pitcher” Examiner notes that time of ball release is inherently available from the aforementioned speed (distance/time) data.), and the pitching machine is configured to launch the ball with the pitching trajectory information from the position of ball release of the pitcher in the pitching motion video displayed on the screen comprising a head-mounted display device ([0019], “FIG. 6 is a side, perspective view of a user wearing a virtual reality head-mounted display showing a virtual reality environment.”) at a motion timing controlled by the kinetic motion learning device ([0011], “projection system … is configured to: display … a release of a digital baseball from the release point associated with the pitch type for the … pitcher, the release of the digital baseball continuing in a simulated trajectory of a thrown pitch from the release point associated with the pitch type”), in which the head-mounted display device includes an adjusting mechanism to adjust size of the pitching motion video ([0019], “FIG. 6 is a side, perspective view of a user wearing a virtual reality head-mounted display showing a virtual reality environment.” Examiner notes that a head-mounted display device can include mechanisms to adjust the video size and view.), Danis discloses a home plate defined by rules of the game ([0078], “rules engine … may include … location in the strike zone when crossing the plate”); and a screen disposed adjacent to a home plate side of the pitching machine ([0075], “the … screen … displays the selected pitcher throwing the pitch” Examiner notes that to display the pitcher, the screen can be adjacent or next to the home plate.), and Suba discloses and controlling a motion timing of the projector and the pitching machine so that a time of ball release of the pitcher in the pitching motion video displayed on the screen and a time of the pitching machine launching the ball with the pitching trajectory information match (page 27, lines 15-17, “Control unit ... is able to display a variety of different images onto the projection screen ... by sending such images to the projector ... Such images may include, for example, images of different pitchers, advertising messages, and the like.”), projecting, by the projector, the pitching motion video onto the screen so that the pitching motion video is displayed on the screen at a motion timing controlled by the kinetic motion learning device (page 24, line 21 and page 25, lines 1-2, “The video projector ... is adapted to project a video image of an actual pitcher onto the projection screen, the showing of which is ... timed ... by the pitching machine”), and the screen includes a hole through which a ball launched by the pitching machine can pass at a position of ball release of the pitcher in the pitching motion video displayed, and the screen displays the pitching motion video projected by the projector (page 24, lines 11-13, “The projection screen ... includes a hole ... in the screen in alignment with the pitching machine ... to permit a ball thrown by the pitching machine ... to travel therethrough.”).
MPEP § 2111 discusses proper claim interpretation, including giving claims their
broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) in light of the specification during
examination. Under BRI, the words of a claim must be given their plain meaning unless
such meaning is inconsistent with the specification, and it is improper to import claim
limitations from the specification into the claim. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the BRI is broader than what is argued. Therefore, the rejections of claim 1, 3-6, 9, 13-16, and 21-22, as obvious by Reilly in view of Danis and Suba, and claims 16-20, as obvious by Reilly in view of Danis, Suba and Thornbrue, are maintained.
As to establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, upon review, the
examiner’s rejection satisfied the requirements for applying Rationale G in 2143(I)(G).
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the argument does not meet the
requirements of 37 C.F.R. 1.111(b), and, upon review, the rejection does make a prima
facie case using 2143(I)(G). Therefore, the rejections of claim 1, 3-6, 9, 13-16, and 21-22, as obvious by Reilly in view of Danis and Suba, and claims 16-20, as obvious by Reilly in view of Danis, Suba and Thornbrue, are maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejections presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Lisa Antoine whose telephone number is
(571) 272-4252 and whose email address is lantoine@uspto.gov. The examiner can be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:30 am-5:30 pm CT. 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, Xuan Thai, can be reached on (571) 272-7147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Publication Information
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be
obtained from the Patent Center. Unpublished application information in the Patent
Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in the
Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about the
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.
/LISA H ANTOINE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights