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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim of priority from U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/291,047, filed December 17, 2021.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6, 9-14 and 17-20 are pending. Claims 7-8 and 15-16 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 9, filed March 12, 2026, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amendment of the claims has overcome the previous objections and therefor they have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed March 12, 2026 with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claimed features of “a housing” and “a device disposed in the housing” are not concepts that fall under the grouping of abstract ideas. However, Applicant is reminded that the mere recitation of a housing, a device, a display, control unit, sensors, imaging devices, speaker, storage medium, etc. to perform/store programming instructions of the recited/identified abstract idea does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the 35 USC 101 rejections are upheld.
Applicant's arguments filed March 12, 2026 with respect to the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that none of the previously proposed prior art references teach the newly added limitations of “a housing configured to be coupled to a sporting apparatus” and “a device disposed in the housing, the device configured to monitor and generate data regarding a sports action of a user”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As described in the 35 USC 102 rejections below, Marty teaches the components of the system may be enclosed within a single housing and that a camera, a touch screen display, a computer and a sound projection device are integrated into the housing (see Marty, Col. 46, lines 3-26 and Col. 47, lines 60-64). Examiner asserts that this is sufficient to teach the limitations because the housing system is coupled to the computer system that evaluates the sporting action of the user (i.e., the sporting apparatus) and the camera in the housing is sufficient to teach a device configured to monitor and generate data regarding a sports action of the user. Thus, the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections are upheld, and consequently, THIS ACTION IS FINAL.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium for monitoring a user’s performance while playing various sports. Consider method claim 9:
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the instant claim is directed to a method or a process; and therefore, the claim is directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One:
With regard to 2A, Prong One, the limitations “based on the received data determine a performance outcome of the sports action of the user relative to one or more target goals” and “based on the performance outcome of the sports action of the user relative to the one or more target goals, generate analytics that indicate (i) characteristics of the user, (ii) characteristics of the sports action, (iii) recommendations for improving the sports actions for subsequent sports actions, and (iv) game performance” as drafted, recite an abstract idea, such as a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations manually and in the mind of a person. That is, a user or person skilled in the art may manually determine whether a sports action was successful by correlating sensor and image data to determine motion of a user and an object (e.g., determine if a basketball shot was made based on motion of a basketball and player determined from sensors and images) and describe characteristics of a user (e.g., player number), describe characteristics of the sports action (e.g., if the shot was made), make recommendations for improving at the sports action (e.g., different shooting technique), and describe game performance (e.g., which team won the game) based on a video or images of a sporting event and sensor data. This is the concept that falls under the grouping of abstract ideas mental processes, i.e., a concept performed in the human mind, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion of the user.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase “integration into a practical application” to require an additional step or a combination of additional steps in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, the additional steps of “receiving data from a device disposed in a housing, the device configured to monitor and generate data regarding a sports action of a user” and “providing output data representing the analytics” is considered to be extra-solution activity of gathering and outputting information. In addition, with respect to the system and computer-readable medium claims of claims 1 and 17, the mere recitation of a housing, a device, a display, processors, sensors, imaging devices, speaker, or storage medium to perform/store programming instructions of the recited/identified abstract idea does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the above-mentioned additional elements/limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and therefore, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Because the claims fail under Step 2A, the claims are further evaluated under Step 2B. The claims herein do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements/limitations to perform the recited steps, amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are not patent eligible. In addition, claims 2-6, 10-14, and 18-20 of the instant application provide limitations that both individually or in combination do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1, 3, 5, 9, 11, 13, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marty et al. (US 10360685 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Marty teaches a system (Col. 14, lines 21-24, a system is provided for capturing the performance in the sporting environment) comprising:
a housing configured to be coupled to a sporting apparatus (Col. 46, lines 3-26, the components of the system may be enclosed within a single housing or may be divided between a plurality of different housings enclosing different components of the system);
a device disposed in the housing, the device configured to monitor and generate data regarding a sports action of a user (Col. 47, lines 60-64, a camera used in a machine vision system (i.e., a device configured to monitor and generate data regarding a sports action of a user), a touch screen display, a computer, and a sound projection device are integrated into a housing with a support chassis);
one or more processors disposed in the housing (Col. 46, lines 40-51, the computer may be a modified PC using a 1.6 GHz processor), wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
receive (i) the data from the device (Col. 32, lines 9-22, the system may include a data capture that receives video and/or sound data from one or more cameras and microphones coupled to the system);
based on the received data determine a performance outcome of the sports action of the user relative to one or more target goals (Col. 15, lines 17-26, the trajectory performance of an actual serve is evaluated and compared to the success criterion to determine whether the serve was hit in a manner that would result in it landing in the predicted target zone. Col. 6, line 62 – Col. 7, line 6, the initial forces applied to a basketball (i.e., sporting object involved in the sporting action) based upon a player’s body motions and orientation may be determined using other devices alone or in combination with video capture (i.e., received image data). For instance, a player may wear a device, such as a glove, with sensors. The sensor may include but are not limited to accelerometers and rotational sensors that allow forces generated by the player to be determined (i.e., sensor data). This methodology is not limited to basketball, an analysis of an individual body motions and orientation to determine initial conditions for an outcome prediction of the trajectory of an object may be utilized in other sports, such as golf, tennis, skateboarding, football, soccer, racquet ball, etc.);
based on the performance outcome of the sports action of the user relative to the one or more target goals, generate analytics that indicate (i) characteristics of the user (Col. 19, lines 26-38, self and relative characteristics of an object may be determined. For instance, a player may be a shooter or a defender in a basketball game. The player may be identified as a shooter by identifying the basketball and then associating the basketball with a particular player. A defender may be defined as a player that is in the vicinity of the shooter), (ii) characteristics of the sports action (Col. 6, lines 29-49, based upon data captured of a basketball approaching a basketball hoop, it may be possible to predict the velocity, direction and angle of the ball as it left the shooters hand), (iii) recommendations for improving the sports action for subsequent sports actions (Col. 37, lines 27-35, an optimum shooting angle is predicted for the individual based upon their measured variability in their shooting mechanics. A recommendation for this type of player may be to adjust their shot so that their average entry angle is as close to 45 degrees as possible), or (iv) game performance (Col. 21, lines 47-59, a number of identifiers may be determined, such as time/date, player name, team, etc.); and
provide output data representing the analytics (Col. 47, lines 29-35, a touch screen display may be used to input and display operation information. Col. 19, lines 60-67, an interface may be provided that allows a user information to be mined from the database and output to a user).
Regarding claim 3, Marty teaches the system of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the device comprises at least one of a depth-sensing camera and an RGB camera (Col. 20, lines 3-16, one or more mono, stereo or RGB-Z camera(s) may be used to gather data at a location where basketball is played), wherein the depth-sensing camera is configured to perform one or more of the following (i) detect the user on a field (Col. 20, lines 17-34, the cameras may allow information to be captured on one or more of the objects on or near the court such as shooter #13, defender #15), (ii) track movements of the user (Col. 28, lines 59-64, these cameras may be able to capture 3-D position of all movement of the ball, 10 players, and 3 referees for the half court), (iii) detect a sporting object used by the user for the sports action (Col. 20, lines 17-34, the cameras may allow information to be captured on one or more of the objects such as a basketball), (iv) track movements of the sporting object (Col. 28, lines 59-64, these cameras may be able to capture 3-D position of all movement of the ball), (v) detect a body posture of a user (Col. 20, lines 17-34, the cameras may allow information to be captured on one or more of the objects such as hands of shooter, head of shooter, shoulder rotation of shooter with respect to the basket, feet of shooter), and (vi) record a field of view for a sporting field, and the RGB camera is configured to record video images (Col. 20, lines 17-34, five of the stereo camera pairs are focused on the floor action as shown in Fig. 13C. A field of view for each of the cameras in the camera system focused on the floor for one half of the court is shown. Col. 32, lines 9-22, the system may include a data capture that receives video and/or sound data from one or more cameras and microphones coupled to the system).
Regarding claim 5, Marty teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a speaker, wherein the speaker is configured to provide audible output in response to receiving the output data representing the analytics from the one or more processors (Col. 48, lines 7-20, the travel system may generate output signals that may be routed through a portable audio system for amplification via speakers on the audio system to provide feedback information).
Claims 9, 11, and 13 recite methods with steps corresponding to the elements of the systems recited in Claims 1, 3, and 5, respectively. Therefore, the recited steps of these claims are mapped to the proposed reference in the same manner as the corresponding elements in their corresponding system claims.
Claims 17 and 19 recite computer-readable storage mediums storing programs with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claims 9 and 11, respectively. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of these claims are mapped to the proposed reference in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the Marty reference discloses a computer readable storage medium (Marty, Claim 52, a non-transitory computer readable medium…).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marty et al. (US 10360685 B2) in view of Mark Connell (US 2023/0144415 A1, filed November 10, 2021) further in view of Thurman et al. (US 2014/0222177 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Marty teaches the system of claim 1, and further teaches the device comprises a plurality of sensors, wherein the plurality of sensors comprise one or more of (Marty, Col. 6, line 62-Col. 7 line 6, the sensor may include accelerometers and rotational sensors that allow forces generated by the player to be determined), and wherein
the accelerometers are configured to generate sensor data indicative of an indication of a location of a sports object relative to the system based on accelerometer data and a vibration pattern (Marty, Col. 6, line 62-Col. 7 line 6, the sensor may include accelerometers and rotational sensors that allow forces generated by the player to be determined); and
wherein the one or more processors are configured to: (iv) determine the indication of the location of the sports object relative to the system based on the accelerometer data and the vibration pattern using the sensor data from the accelerometers (Marty, Col. 6, line 62-Col. 7 line 6, the sensor may include accelerometers and rotational sensors that allow forces generated by the player to be determined. Col. 20, lines 35-58, 3-axis accelerometers to gather detailed data on the 3-D motion of the hand during a shooting or passing motion).
Although Marty teaches a plurality of sensors including an accelerometer (Marty, Col. 20, lines 35-58), Marty does not explicitly teach “the LIDAR sensors are configured to generate sensor data indicative of the sports action of the user and one or more characteristics indicative of the sports action”, “the motion sensors are configured to generate sensor data indicative of one or more users on a field within proximity to the system”, “(i) detect the sports action of the user and one or more characteristics indicative of the sports action using the sensor data from the LIDAR sensors” and “(ii) detect the one or more users on the field within the proximity to the system using the sensor data from the motion sensors”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Connell teaches sensors capturing data associated with the target object, for example, if the sensors are LIDAR sensors, the sensor data may include LIDAR data that can be used to generate a digital representation of the target object (Connell, Para. [0071]). Connell further teaches other sensors including digital cameras, motion sensors, proximity sensors, sonar sensors, light sensors, and/or the like, and the data from the various sensors, individually or in combination, may be used to detect and identify a target object placed within the initial area (Connell, Para. [0076]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Marty with the teachings of Connell by including LIDAR sensors for detecting the sports action of the user and motion sensors for detecting users. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references, because doing so would allow for a system to estimate the trajectory path of an object, as recognized by Connell.
Although Marty in view of Connell teaches a plurality of sensors including accelerometers (Marty, Col. 20, lines 35-58), LIDAR sensors (Connell, Para. [0071]), and motion sensors (Connell, Para. [0076]), they do not explicitly teach “the trip sensors are configured to generate sensor data indicative of whether the sports action was successful” and “(iii) determine whether the performance outcome of the sports action is successful relative to the one or more target goals using the sensor data from the trip sensors”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Thurman teaches a device configured to receive signals output from signal transmitter of the sensor of the basketball and to visibly present information based upon a determination of whether one or more basketball shots were made shots or missed shots (Thurman, Para. [0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Marty in view of Connell with the teachings of Thurman by including a sensor (i.e., trip sensor) for determining whether the sports action was successful (i.e., shot was made). One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references, because doing so would allow for a sports sensing system that allows a player to track their performances, as recognized by Thurman. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 10 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in Claims 2. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Marty, Connell, and Thurman references, presented in rejection of Claim 2, apply to this claim.
Claim 18 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 10. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Marty, Connell, and Thurman references, presented in rejection of Claim 2, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Marty, Connell, and Thurman references discloses a computer readable storage medium (Marty, Claim 52, a non-transitory computer readable medium…).
Claims 4, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marty et al. (US 10360685 B2) in view of Dai et al. (US 9600717 B1).
Regarding claim 4, Marty teaches the system of claim 1, as described above.
Although Marty teaches an outcome prediction of the trajectory of an object for a plurality of types of sports (Marty, Col. 7, lines 1-6), Marty does not explicitly teach “wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive an indication of a type of sport to be played by the user; or detect a type of sport being played by the user”, “identify a trained machine-learning model to apply based on the type of sport being played by the user” and “apply the identified trained machine-learning model to model characteristics of the user”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Dai teaches detecting a sports type of the input sports video (Dai, Col. 12, lines 46-59) and teaches a set of trained feature models are selected for the received input sports video based on the detected sports type, e.g., a baseball swing action from a baseball sports video. The set of selected feature models include a player detector and a set of key pose identifiers (Dai, Col. 12, lines 46-59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Marty with the teachings of Dai by including detecting a type of sport being played and identifying a trained machine-learning model to apply based on the type of sport to model player characteristics. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references, because doing so would allow for recognizing if sports actions have occurred in the video frames, as recognized by Dai. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in Claims 4. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Marty and Dai references, presented in rejection of Claim 4, apply to this claim.
Claim 20 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 12. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Marty and Dai references, presented in rejection of Claim 24, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Marty and Dai references discloses a computer readable storage medium (Marty, Claim 52, a non-transitory computer readable medium…).
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marty et al. (US 10360685 B2) in view of Dibenedetto et al. (US 2015/0379351 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Marty teaches the system of claim 1, and further teaches wherein a display screen that is configured to display one or more of (i) the data from the device (Marty, Col. 25, lines 62-65, video frame data and possibly sounds associated with the simulation may be output to a display for the selected perspective), (iii) data from a second control unit connected over a network (Marty, Col. 46, lines 40-51, the digitized frame data from a machine vision system and other sensor data may be processed by a computer. The computer may also include a mass storage device, such as a hard drive and various network/device communications interfaces), and (iv) data from a client device (Marty, Col. 50, lines 1-9, the output from the data services, such as a portable record or information viewed on the graphical interface, may be used by the system clients).
Although Marty teaches outputting video frame data to a display (Marty, Col. 25, lines 62-65), Marty does not explicitly teach “(ii) a heads up display (HUD) displaying sports actions attempted by the user”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Dibenedetto teaches an athletic activity HUD (Dibenedetto, Para. [0050]) that may playback a first person recorded video wearing the HUD such that the first person recorded video takes up the individual’s entire field of view (Dibenedetto, Para. [0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Marty with the teachings of Dibenedetto by including a heads up display displaying sports actions attempted by a user. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references, because doing so would allow for presenting computer-generated sensory input via a heads up display to an individual engaged in or observing an athletic activity, as recognized by Dibenedetto. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 14 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in Claims 6. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Marty and Dibenedetto references, presented in rejection of Claim 6, apply to this claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emma Rose Goebel whose telephone number is (703)756-5582. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at (571) 272-3382. 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.
/Emma Rose Goebel/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights