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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/29/26 has been entered.
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 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 3-10 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process that can be performed by a human being and/or mathematical concepts and/or claim methods of image analysis.
In regard to Claims 1 and 8, the following limitations can be performed as a mental process by a human being in terms of claiming collecting data, analyzing that data, and providing outputs based on that analysis which has been held by the CAFC to be an abstract idea in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential); and/or claim mathematical concepts as outlined at MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I); and/or claim methods of image analysis analogous to other methods of image analogous that have been held patent ineligible by the CAFC in decisions including Coffelt v. Nvidia (2017-1119; 3/15/17; non-precedential), Hawk Technology v Castle Retail (2022-1222; 2/17/2023), Mobile Acuity v. Blippar (2022-2216; 8/6/24), Recognicorp v. Nintendo (2016-1499; 4/28/17), Yu v. Apple (2020-1760; 6/11/21), in terms of the Applicant claiming:
[a] method for [determining] an impact position on a club head of a golf club using [image data from] a first camera and a second camera operated in a stereoscopic manner […] the method comprising:
acquiring [image data taken from] the first camera installed at a first location, [the] first image of a field of view including a golf ball and the golf club;
acquiring [image data taken from] the second camera installed at a second location different from the first location, a second image of a field of view including the golf ball and the golf club;
analyzing […] the first image to detect a position of a first ball which is a portion corresponding to the golf ball in the first image, and analyzing movement of the golf club on the first image to calculate a first club trajectory;
analyzing […] the second image to detect a position of a second ball which is a portion corresponding to the golf ball in the second image. and analyzing movement of the golf club on the second image to calculate a second club trajectory;
calculating […] a vertical distance from a center point of the first ball to the first club trajectory on the first image as a first ball distance;
calculating […] a vertical distance from a center point of the second ball to the second club trajectory on the second image as a second ball distances; and
calculating […] a point where a first position located at the first ball distance in a direction perpendicular to an optical axis of the first camera and a second position located at the second ball distance in a direction perpendicular to an optical axis of the second camera meet each other. as the impact position.
In regard to the dependent claims, they also claim an abstract idea to the extent that they merely claim further limitations that likewise could be performed as a mental process by a human being and/or claim methods of image analysis.
Furthermore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because to the extent that additional elements are claimed either alone or in combination such as, e.g., stereoscopic cameras and a processor executing Applicant’s abstract idea embodied as computer software; and/or a golf swing stage; these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering), to embody the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In this regard, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) in regard to “courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application…”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that taken individually, and also taken as an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g., stereoscopic cameras and a processor executing Applicant’s abstract idea embodied as computer software; and/or a golf swing stage; these are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements and are claimed for the well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of collecting and processing data and/or providing an analysis/outputs based on that processing. To the extent that an apparatus is claimed as an additional element said apparatus fails to qualify as a “particular machine” to the extent that it is claimed generally, merely implements the steps of Applicant’s claimed method, and is claimed merely for purposes of extra-solution activity or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(b). As evidence that these additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, Applicant’s specification discloses the support for these elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See, e.g., F1-2 in Applicant’s PGPUB and text regarding same.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on page 9 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
706
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Applicant’s claimed invention does not, in fact, improve the accuracy and/or precision of Applicant’s claimed stereoscopic cameras themselves, which would, in fact, be patent eligible under Thales. Instead, Applicant claim an ostensibly more accurate mathematical algorithm for analyzing images taken by those cameras, in order to identify moving objects in those images. Such improved mathematical algorithms, however, are not patent eligible under Mayo. See, e.g., from the CAFC’s decision in In re: Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University (2020-1288; 3/25/21):
PNG
media_image2.png
162
476
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
208
468
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Id., slip. op., pages 12-13.
See also, in this regard, and specific to image analysis, from the CAFC’s decision in Coffelt v. Nvidia (2017-1119; 3/15/17):
PNG
media_image4.png
352
484
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Id., slip. op., page 3.
Therefore, the rejections made under 35 USC 101 are maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is listed in the attached PTO-Form 892 and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.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.
/MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights