DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The Examiner notes that it has been held that a recitation that a structural element is "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to” perform a function does not limit the claim to a particular structure and thus only requires the ability to so perform the function. (See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. See also, MPEP 2111.04) As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and the prior art, the recitations of "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to” will be deemed met by an element in the prior art capable of performing the function recited in connection with "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to”. The examiner is aware of the functional language in the various claims.
Disclaimer
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 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.
Applicant’s response to the Final office action of 11/14/2024 is acknowledged on 8/19/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1, 11 and 20 disclose the expression “wherein the instructional feedback includes text, images, video, and symbols providing instructions for improved body placement change. The instant application in paragraph 40 appear to disclose the instruction feedback to include images and/or video or text and/or symbol but not all the listed items. For purpose of examination, the examiner is considering the instruction feedback to include images and/or video or text and/or symbol.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the instructional feedback includes text, images, video, and symbols providing instruction” as recited in claims 1, 11 and 20 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7, 10-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alonso (US Patent Publication No. 2010/0283630) in view of Antonucci (US Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0204045).
Regarding claim 1, Alonso discloses a system for football training (see abstract, see all Figures) comprising: a plurality of imaging devices configured to capture real-time images indicating movement of a football (paragraphs 64 & 78 and claim 16 disclose the use of plurality of cameras. Claims 7-8 discloses real-time imaging), wherein the plurality of imaging devices are further configured to capture the real-time images at different perspectives (the cameras are considered as being capable capturing different perspectives. Paragraph 78 discloses that the telemetry data may be used as part of a 360-degree dynamic view based on the camera angles and perspective relative to the acquired sports player(s) performance metrics, sports…); a processor (paragraphs 14-15 and 48-49 disclose computer system); and a memory (in paragraph 51, it is disclosed that the performance metric is recorded into a database and this indicates that there is memory and paragraph 78 a recorded feed is disclosed), including instructions stored thereon (in paragraphs 60 and 66, the computer system is disclosed that it can be programed and this is considered as instructions stored), which, when executed by the processor, cause the system to: capture real-time images of the football (paragraph 101 discloses that camera 171 is used for real-time processing. See also claims 7-8); determine a telemetry data of the football based on the captured real-time images; and determine instructional feedback in response to the telemetry data of the football (see paragraphs 101-104).
Alonso reference establishes that the recorded, transmitted, and processed data from actual games, practices, and training sessions serve as a tool for review by players, teams, and coaches (see paragraphs 101-104 of the reference). As disclosed in the reference, recordings capture real-time performance, enabling thorough post-event analysis. Given the fundamental purpose of such review - to assess and improve performance - it is both inherent and obvious that the gathered information is utilized to provide instructional feedback. Coaches rely on this data to identify strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement, making it an essential component of player development. Reviewing game footage, for instance, allows coaches to highlight tactical errors, reinforce successful strategies, and tailor training regimens accordingly. The process is not merely incidental but an expected and logical outcome of recording sports events. Thus, the direct use of this information for instructional feedback for both references is an inevitable and intrinsic aspect of sports training and team development.
Alonso does not explicitly disclose the instructional feedback to include text, images, video, and symbols providing instructions as recited. Antonucci teaches a similar performance improvement system that provides instructional feedback, although the feedback is delivered through an audio speaker (112). Although Antonucci does not disclose feedback in the form of text, images, video, and symbols, it nevertheless teaches that providing instructional feedback to improve athletic performance was known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Alonso’s system to use other well-known feedback modalities, such as visual and symbolic cues, instead of, or in addition to, audio feedback, because substituting one known mode of presenting instructions with another is a predictable design choice and would improve user comprehension and flexibility. Accordingly, the combination of Alonso and Antonucci renders the claimed instructional feedback features obvious.
It should be noted that examiner is giving the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as set forth in MPEP 904.01(a). The examiner notes that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art. SEE MPEP 2114.
Regarding claims 2-3, Alonso discloses the use of motion sensor (see abstract, paragraphs 47 and 57 disclose the use of sensors. In paragraph 57, it is disclosed that the sensors “be embedded, attached and/or affixed in the participants equipment, including shoulder pads, chest pads, helmets, shoes, and the like, as well as game objects 68, including a football, sideline markers, down markers 80, and the like. Data, such as movement, location, speed, acceleration, burst, impact, location and the like, can be acquired, captured and provided to the system”. Alonso discloses a display (see paragraphs 60, 66 and Figure 69 discloses 501 as a display), wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor further cause the system to display instructional feedback onto the one or more displays (see paragraphs 101-104. See also claims 9-10 and 16).
Regarding claim 4, Alonso discloses wherein the telemetry data is determined based on image recognition (see paragraph 78 that discloses video that takes images).
Regarding claims 5-6, Alonso teaches the use of sensors but does not explicitly disclose the sensor to be a radar or infrared. Radar is a well-known type of sensor used to detect motion, speed, and position. Substituting one known sensor (e.g., camera or motion sensor) with another known sensor like radar or infrared sensor that perform the same type of detection is a predictable design choice and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve accuracy, range, or reliability.
Regarding claim 7, see rejection of claims 1-2. For example, in paragraph 101 of the Alonso reference video and images are disclosed. It is noted that the combination of the references do not explicitly disclose the instructional feedback to provide advice on how to kick or throw, position the body and adjust posture. Although the combination of the references does not expressly disclose instructional feedback that advises how to kick or throw, position the body, and adjust posture, the combination nonetheless teaches systems that analyze player motion and provide performance improving feedback. Once such feedback capabilities are disclosed, the specific content of the advice is an obvious design choice within the ordinary skill in the art. Selecting particular types of performance instructions, such as kicking, throwing, or posture adjustments, does not require any special structure beyond what Alonso and Antonucci already provide. Therefore, the combination renders the claimed instructional feedback features obvious even without explicitly describing those examples.
Regarding claim 10, the use of speaker (112) is disclosed by the Antonucci reference. A speaker is a well-known component for playing any type of audio, and substituting or adding different audio outputs, such as simulated crowd noise, is a predictable and routine design choice. Doing so would enhance training realism, improve user engagement, and simulate competitive environments, all of which would have been obvious benefits. Therefore, the combination renders the claimed features obvious.
Regarding claims 11-13 and 17, see rejection of claims 1-2 above.
Regarding claim 14, see rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claims 15-16, see rejections of claims 5-6 above.
Regarding claim 20, see rejection of claims 1-2 above. See all claims and paragraph 104 of the reference. Regarding the device being a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, the use of PDA is disclosed in paragraph XXX of the Alonso reference and this component is a non-transitory computer-readable medium because it is a device that stores data. During normal use and operation of the combination of the references, the method steps as recited would obviously be performed.
Claims 8-9 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alonso as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gupta et al. (US Patent Application No. 2019/0134506).
Alonso does not disclose the use of wind machine as recited. However, the concept is not new in a sport environment and Gupta is one example of reference that teaches the use of environmental simulation device that is capable of generating wind (see component 192 and see paragraphs 236-237). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the references as applied to claim 1 with a wind machine/wind generation system to provide environmental effects that enhance a game participant's experience and interaction with the system as stated in paragraph 236 of the Gupta reference.
Regarding the wind machine being movable and to be disposed in a alley way, although Gupta does not explicitly disclose that the wind machine is movable or disposed in an alley way adjacent to a display, such placement would have been an obvious matter of design choice. Once the use of artificial wind for training is known, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to position the wind machine in any convenient location, including making it movable or placing it beside a display, to direct airflow appropriately and accommodate different training setups. These variations involve no special structural requirements and represent predictable modifications aimed at enhancing environmental simulation. Accordingly, the combination of the references renders the claimed wind machine and placement features obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINI F LEGESSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4412. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday 9 AM - 5:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NINI F LEGESSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711