DETAILED ACTION The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. 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. Claim 1 -20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Each of the claim(s) has/have been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions. Step 2A, Prong 1 The claim(s) recite(s): Claim 1 includes limitations directed towards "1. A method for training comprising: determining, via a controller, physical characteristics of a trainee;" These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) Claim 1 includes limitations directed towards "adjusting a target zone based on the physical characteristics;" These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) Claim 1 includes limitations directed towards "adjusting one or more parameters of a delivery device based on the physical characteristics;" These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) Claim 1 includes limitations directed towards "projecting, via the delivery device, an object toward the target zone along a trajectory; and" These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) Claim 1 includes limitations directed towards "scoring a performance score of the trainee to track the object along a portion of the trajectory." These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) Accordingly, each of the claim(s) recited above recite an abstract idea. Further, the dependent claim(s), if present, merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed. Step 2A, Prong 2 Prong Two Considerations This/these judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application because the examiner does not find one of the following to exist: Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a) Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b) Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c) Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo Furthermore, limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) The above-identified abstract idea in each of the claims indicated above (and their respective dependent Claims) is/are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claims indicated above (and their respective dependent claims) do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do the additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in the above identified claim(s) (and their respective dependent claims) is/are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Moreover, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea wherein if computer elements are claimed they are additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea(s) identified above (and their respective dependent claims) is/are not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of the claims identified above (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG. Step 2B None of the claim(s) indicated above (or their dependents) include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am. , Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs. , 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO , Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc. , 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish , LLC v. Microsoft Corp. , 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016) , the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the additional elements in the claim(s) identified above (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements (if any are present) nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself . The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Prong Two Considerations (as indicated above) are not met and the examiner does not find a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (see MPEP 2106.05(d)) to exist in the claim(s) to render the claim(s) significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, none of the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the claim(s) indicated above (and their dependent claims) are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Carter WO 2017143341 A1 - which teaches a method for training baseball pitcher comparing the height and weight. Adams US 201000041498 A1 - which teaches a method for training a baseball player and comparing users’ height and weight. Murphy WO 2021028671 A2 - which teaches an adaptable wall portion which adapts based on the characteristics of the player. Crowley CA 2757238 C - which teaches monitoring physical training events monitored using sensors that include player's height but doesn't mention ball launching based on player characteristics. Thurman US 20140277636 A1 - which teaches a ball sensing system with pitch characteristics but not player characteristics. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JEFFREY S VANDERVEEN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-0503 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 11am - 7pm CST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Nicholas Weiss can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /JEFFREY S VANDERVEEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3711