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 .
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.
Claim 27 is 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.
In claim 27 the recitation of the “another device” is vague. Claim 15 recites that the shot data is obtained from the ball delivery device, while claim 27 states that the shot data is received from another device, making it unclear which device obtains the shot data.
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 15-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) the mentally performable act of indexing shot data for a shot. Indexing of shot data can be performed by a coach or sports statistician, for example.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a), as the one or more processors and non-transitory computer readable media operates in its usual manner of processing and storing data and instructions; there is no application or use of a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition, but only data collection, data manipulation and data outputting – see Vanda Memo; there is no application of the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b), but only generic computer structure; there is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c), but only data manipulation; and there is no application or use of the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of ball delivery/sports equipment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the step of obtaining shot data is considered insignificant data gathering that would be required in any method attempting to index shot data. The additional element of providing a representation of the shot data for output is also insignificant, as it represents necessary data outputting required to provide the indexing in human perceivable form. The allusion to a “ball delivery machine” merely establishes the field of use and invokes the machine as a generic tool to perform an existing process (i.e., the process of indexing shots). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer readable media (claim 34) with instructions to obtain shot data and provide a representation of the shot data for output is also WURC in the art. The applicant states that the one or more processors may include well-known computer structure such as microprocessors, controllers, DSPs, ASICs, FPGAs or other equivalent circuitry (par. 0082). The non-volatile memory may include well-known forms of storage devices including magnetic hard discs, optical drives, floppy discs, flash memories, etc. (par. 0084). The combination of such elements is also WURC as they form the basis for any computerized system.
Claims 16-25 and 28-32 contain no new additional elements as they only further limit the type of data collected.
Regarding claim 26, the use of one or more sensors is considered insignificant data gathering as all computerized methods of obtaining shot data would require one or more sensors to collect the data requisite for forming an index. The use of sensors to detect various shot data is also WURC in the art. The applicant discloses that the sensors can include a wide variety of known means including contacting sensors, non-contacting sensors, time of flight sensors, etc. and depend upon the type of data desired (par. 00129).
Regarding claim 27, the reference to a network connection from “another device” represents insignificant data gathering activity. The use of network connections to obtain data is WURC in the art (e.g., the Internet). The applicant states that such an element may include known devices such as mainframe computers, desktop computers, laptop computers and other computing devices capable of serving websites (par. 0090).
Regarding claim 34, the additional element of delivering a ball to a user for a shot is considered insignificant extra-solution activity that would be required in every application of the abstract idea in order to allow the obtainment of shot data. Such an element fails to integrate the exception into a practical application as it merely allows for the necessary data gathering to take place (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
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.
Claims (15-16, 18-32) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marty et al (11,896,884) hereinafter (Marty) in view of Marty et al (8,617,008) hereinafter (Marty ‘008).
Claim 15, Marty discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining, shot data for a shot;
indexing, the shot data for the shot; and
in response to receiving a query, providing, a representation of the shot data for the shot, for output (see Marty in its entirety).
Marty discloses the claimed device with the exception of expressly disclosing the computer-implemented method being used in combination with a ball delivery machine. However, as disclosed by Marty ‘008 it is known to use a ball delivery machine (1302; figure 11) to communicate and operate using a computer for delivering a ball to a user. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have operated a ball delivery machine using a computer given that Marty ‘008 teaches such is an effective manner for controlling and operating the ball delivery machine.
Claim 16, Marty shows the shot data comprises radar data (figure 14; column 23, lines 1-9).
Claim 18, Marty shows the shot data comprises a shot identifier (column 59, lines 58-64).
Claim 19, Marty shows the shot data comprises data that indicates whether the shot was made or missed (column 11, lines 29-54).
Claim 20, Marty shows the shot data comprises video or an image of the shot (column 6, lines 48-58).
Claim 21, Marty shows the shot data comprises pose information (column 39, lines 26-59 and column 52, lines 59-67 and column 53, lines 1-19).
Claim 22, Marty shows the shot data comprises at least one of a shoulder angle, an elbow angle, and a wrist angle (column 33, lines 63-67 and column 34, lines 1-11).
Claim 23, Marty shows the shot data comprises an assessment of the shot (column 33, lines 5-45).
Claim 24, Marty shows receiving the query, and identifying the shot in response to the query (column 33, lines 5-45).
Claim 25, Marty shows providing the representation of the shot data for output comprises providing a video of the shot for output (column 6, lines 13-34).
Claim 26, Marty shows obtaining the shot data for the shot comprises generating the shot data using one or more sensors that are integral to the ball delivery machine (column 7, lines 24-44).
Claim 27, Marty shows obtaining the shot data for the shot comprises receiving the shot data from another device over a network connection (column 9, lines 9-48).
Claim 28, Marty shows the shot data comprises ball path data (column 13, lines 42-57).
Claim 29, Marty shows obtaining the shot data comprises processing one or images using a computer vision algorithm (column 5, lines 35-61).
Claim 30, Marty shows the shot data comprises time or date data (column 6, lines 13-34).
Claim 31, Marty shows the shot data comprises physiological data for a player that attempted the shot (column 2, lines 65-67; column 3, lines 11-12 and column 5, lines 4-22).
Claim 32, Marty shows the shot data comprises a workout identifier (column 5, lines 23-34).
Claim 33, Marty alone and as modified in view of Marty ‘008 discloses one or more non-transitory computer readable media that store instructions which, when executed, cause one or more computer processors to perform operations comprising:
obtaining, by a ball delivery machine for delivering a ball to a user, shot data for a shot;
indexing, by the ball delivery machine, the shot data for the shot; and
in response to receiving a query, providing, by the ball delivery machine, a representation of the shot data for the shot, for output (see Marty in its entirety). Note the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 34, Marty alone and as modified in view of Marty ‘008 disclose a ball delivery machine comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more non-transitory computer readable media that store instructions which, when executed, cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations comprising:
delivering a ball to a user for a shot;
obtaining shot data for the shot;
indexing the shot data for the shot; and
in response to receiving a query, providing a representation of the shot data for the shot, for output (see Marty in its entirety). Note the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of May (US2022/0198368 A1).
Claim 17, Marty alone and as modified above disclose the claimed device with the exception of the shot data comprises LIDAR data. However, as disclosed by May (paragraph 1316) it is known in the art to include specialized depth sensor such as LIDAR or time-of-flight cameras. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the same for Marty’s device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The 112 2nd rejection for claim 27 has been maintained, since it is not readily apparent what structure “another device” represents.
Regarding the rejection of claims under §101, the amendment to claim 15 concerning the obtainment of data from a ball delivery machine that has delivered a ball to a user to shoot, fails to overcome the rejection because the ball delivery machine represents an insignificant field-of use limitation that only generally links the use of the judicial exception to the field of sports training (see MPEP 2105.05(h)). The generic ball delivery machine merely acts as the tool upon which the data necessary to perform the abstract idea is obtained. The source of the information is insignificant. The applicant, in fact, states that the shot data may be received from another device over a network connection (see claim 27), further supporting the Examiner’s position that the source of the data is insignificant (see MPEP 2106.05(g) where the selection of a particular data source is an activity that has been found by the courts to represent insignificant extra-solution activity).
Specifically regarding claim 34 and the limitation concerning delivering a ball to a user for a shot, said limitation fails to overcome the applied §101 rejection because the act of delivering a ball to a user for a shot would be required in any application of the abstract idea in order to allow the machine to obtain the necessary shot data. Said limitation therefore represents insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
With regards to the rejection of claims over prior art of record, the amendments are not sufficient to overcome the prior art rejection, since balls are inherently delivered by ball delivery machine. The prior art device is directed to a ball delivery machine which delivers balls. Therefore, the claims stand rejected over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MITRA ARYANPOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-4405. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon, Thur, Fri 8:00am to 4:00pm, Wed 8:00-2:00
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eugene Kim can be reached on 571-272-4463. 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.
/MITRA ARYANPOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/ma/
13 March 2026