DETAILED ACTION
[1] Remarks
I. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
II. Claims 1-8 are pending and have been examined, where claims 1-8 is/are rejected, claims 1, 4, and 5-6 is/are objected to. Explanations will be provided below.
III. Inventor and/or assignee search were performed and determined no double patenting rejection(s) is/are necessary.
IV. Patent eligibility (updated in 2019) shown by the following: Claims 1-8 pass patent eligibility test because there is/are limitation or a combination of limitations amounting to an abstract idea. The following is an analysis on whether each limitation in all the independent claims can be perform using a mental process.
comparing the skeletal position of a pitcher at the moment of foot strike in the delivery of the pitch against a plurality of skeletal positions, the plurality of skeletal positions being associated with a plurality of pitchers, each skeletal position being associated with the moment of foot strike in the delivery of a pitch; -- can be perform using mental process and
providing a value representative of a position of the pitch on a spectrum, wherein the spectrum is defined by a characteristic known about each of the pitchers of the plurality -- can be perform using mental process.
Also none of the following limitation or the combinations of the limitations effects a transformation or a reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing / adds a specific limitation(s) other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application and providing improvements to the technical field of object tracking, which recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amounting significant more.
VI. There are no PCT associated with the current application.
[2] Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim(s) 1-8 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112 6th paragraph because of the following reason(s): limitations are modified by sufficient structure or material for performing the claimed function; they are method claims with no association to generic placeholder(s); they are CRM claims. Upon examination of the specification and claims, the examiner has determined, under the best understanding of the scope of the claim(s), rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/(b) is not necessitated because of the following reasons: sufficient support are provided in the written description / drawings of the invention.
[3] Grounds of Rejection
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.
35 U.S.C. 101 requires that a claimed invention must fall within one of the four eligible categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) and must not be directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception as interpreted by the courts. MPEP 2106. Three categories of subject matter are found to be judicially recognized exceptions to 35 U.S.C. § 101 (i.e. patent ineligible) (1) laws of nature, (2) physical phenomena, and (3) abstract ideas. MPEP 2106(II). To be patent-eligible, a claim directed to a judicial exception must as whole be directed to significantly more than the exception itself. See 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, 79 Fed. Reg. 74618, 74624 (Dec. 16, 2014). Hence, the claim must describe a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Id
Claim(s) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more. See the rationale above under remarks.
NOTE: to qualify as ‘‘significantly more’’ a claim with a judicial exception must include either: Improvements to another technology or technical field; Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; or Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-2 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winter (US 20130346009) in view of Takeshima (US 20040125115).
With regards to claim 1, Winter discloses a method comprising the steps:
comparing the skeletal position of a pitcher at the moment of foot strike in the delivery of the pitch against a plurality of skeletal positions (see figure 4, 417 tracks the position of the pitch at the foot of the delivery of the baseball):
PNG
media_image1.png
423
869
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the plurality of skeletal positions being associated with a plurality of pitchers (see figure 4, 410, 413, 416 and 417 are skeleton position),
each skeletal position being associated with the moment of foot strike in the delivery of a pitch (see figure 4 below shows the foot is at the moment of where the ball is released);
PNG
media_image2.png
417
898
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Winter is silent in disclosing providing a value representative of a position of the pitch on a spectrum, wherein the spectrum is defined by a characteristic known about each of the pitchers of the plurality. However, Winter teaches reflected wave pulses 206 are captured by the device and beat against the sent pulses to produce a signal 207 (see paragraph 43), which suggests the spectrum of the image is determined.
Corso discloses providing a value representative of a position of the pitch on a spectrum (see figure 32, 4302 represents the starting position, 4307 represents the moment where pitcher is about to release the ball), wherein the spectrum is defined by a characteristic known about each of the pitchers of the plurality (see figure 32, 4301-4307 are the ‘plurality’ of position within the throwing position of a pitcher).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include providing a value representative of a position of the pitch on a spectrum because to amplify region of interest(s) which expose additional details for improving image identification, further ensuring object are tracked appropriately.
PNG
media_image3.png
422
886
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
With regards to claim 2, Winter discloses a method according to claim 1, wherein the criteria is maximum fastball velocity (see figure 4, 417 the ball thrown by a pitcher is usually a ball traveling at a fast speed).
Regarding claim 7, Winter discloses a method according to claim 1, wherein the skeletal position is defined by joint centres (see figure 1, 101).
PNG
media_image4.png
287
442
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Winter discloses a method according to claim 7, wherein the joint centres are derived from 2D video imagery (see paragraph 12, the primary sensor is a video sensor capturing the golfer's swing).
3. Claims 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winter (US 20130346009) in view of Takeshima (US 20040125115) and Cherveny (US 10121066).
With regards to claim 3, the combination of Winter and Takeshima as a whole discloses a method according to claim 1, wherein the criteria is UCL injury resulting in Tommy John surgery. Cherveny discloses a method according to claim 1, wherein the criteria is UCL injury resulting in Tommy John surgery (see figure 3, 322).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include criteria is UCL injury resulting in Tommy John surgery in order to helps identify cases of severe elbow damage that significantly impact an athlete’s performance and recovery time. This also ensures that the analysis of study focuses on high impact on high impact injuries with measurable medical and performance outcomes.
Regarding claim 6 see the rationale and rejection for claim 3. In additional see figure 1 and 3 of Cherveny below:
PNG
media_image5.png
429
750
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
[4] Claim Objections
Claims 6 is objected for the following informalities (see MPEP 608.01(m)). Tables are not allowed in claims. The examiner suggests rewriting the claim which conform with appropriate structure.
Claim 1 is objected for the following informalities. Claim 1’s limitation “providing a value representative of a position of the pitch on a spectrum, wherein the spectrum is defined by a characteristic known about each of the pitchers of the plurality” should be rewritten as the following “providing a value representative of a position of the pitch on a spectrum, wherein the spectrum is defined by a characteristic known about each of the plurality of pitchers.”
Claim(s) 4 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With regards to claim 4, the examiner cannot find any applicable prior art providing teachings for the following limitation(s): “a method according to claim 3, wherein the plurality of pitchers includes a plurality of pitchers that have undergone ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction and a plurality of pitchers that have never undergone ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction; the skeletal positions associated with the pitchers that have undergone ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction is associated with pitches delivered prior to the ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction; and the value is representative of a position of the pitch on a spectrum of pitch health wherein one end is defined by the skeletal positions of the pitchers that have never undergone ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction and the other end is defined by the skeletal positions of the pitchers that have undergone ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction” in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1.
Mayo et al. (Mayo BC, Miller A, Patetta MJ, Schwarzman GR, Chen JW, Haden M, Secretov E, Hutchinson MR. Preventing Tommy John Surgery: The Identification of Trends in Pitch Selection, Velocity, and Spin Rate Before Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction in Major League Baseball Pitchers. Orthop J Sports Med. 2021 Jun 15;9(6):23259671211012364. doi: 10.1177/23259671211012364) discloses a review of MLB pitchers who underwent primary UCL reconstruction between 2009 and 2019 was performed, where the Pitch characteristics were evaluated on a game-by-game basis for the 15 games leading up to surgery, where a MannKendall trend test was used to identify trends in pitch selection, velocity, and spin rate for multiple pitch types, where the Kendall tb correlation coefficient was identified, with values closer to 1 or –1 signifying a stronger monotonic trend.
Cherveny (US 10121066) discloses calculating the stress on a joint by determining when a joint angle is outside the normal range of motion for the joint, wherein the determining step includes analysis of elbow joint stress for baseball pitchers, wherein to mitigate the risk of injury to the ulnar collateral ligament (see figure 3).
PNG
media_image6.png
199
631
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 5, the examiner cannot find any applicable prior art providing teachings for the following limitation(s): a method according to claim 1, wherein the skeletal positions are compared with reference to the parameters elbow flexion; shoulder abduction; should external rotation; horizontal abduction; humeral rotation; forearm pronation; torso rotation; pelvis rotation; trunk tilt; lead knee flexion; lead foot rotation; and foot strike (include all the elements without Martus grouping); in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1.
Cherveny also discloses a method according to claim 1, wherein the skeletal positions elbow flexion; shoulder external rotation;
PNG
media_image5.png
429
750
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX LIEW (duty station is located in New York City) whose telephone number is (571)272-8623 (FAX 571-273-8623), cell (917)763-1192 or email alexa.liew@uspto.gov. Please note the examiner cannot reply through email unless an internet communication authorization is provided by the applicant. The examiner can be reached anytime.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MISTRY ONEAL R, can be reached on (313)446-4912. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEX KOK S LIEW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2674 Telephone: 571-272-8623
Date: 4/10/25