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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “inference engine” in claims 1, 2, 6-8, 12-14 and 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-18 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.
Claims 1, 7 and 13 recite the limitation "the pool ball". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim limitation “inference engine” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. As summarized in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions.
Step 1
In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The instant invention encompasses a method in claims 1-6 (i.e., a process), a system in claims 7-12 and a computing device in claims 13-18 (i.e., machines), which are clearly directed to one of the four statutory categories and meet the requirements of step 1.
Step 2A
Prong One
In step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is ‘directed to' a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The instant invention is broadly directed to “a billiard ball movement prediction method includes capturing imagery of a billiard ball while in motion and submitting the imagery to an inference engine trained to predict a metric of movement of the billiard ball based upon the captured imagery. Thereafter, the predicted metric of movement is transmitted to a remote computing device for viewing by the end user” ([0010]). Claim 1 recites the following (with emphasis added):
Claim 1: A billiard ball movement prediction method comprising:
capturing imagery of a billiard ball while in motion;
submitting the imagery to an inference engine trained to predict a metric of movement of the pool ball based upon the captured imagery; and,
transmitting the predicted metric of movement to a remote computing device.
The bold and underlined portions of claim 1 encompass the abstract idea, which is also encompassed by the dependent claims 2-6 and substantially also encompassed by claims 7-18.
Claims 1, 7 and 13 recite the steps for capturing imagery of a billiard ball and submitting the imagery to get prediction on a metric of the ball movement. These steps are directed to a process similar to a trained professional looking at a billiard ball in motion and predicts a metric of the ball movement and transmitting the predicted metric to others. Therefore, the claimed invention is directed to mental processes.
Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because mere instruction to implement on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use is not considered integration into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the present claims include the additional elements other than the abstract idea which include one or more computers processing communications with different remote computing devices over a computer communications network in all claims. These additional elements to carry out the steps does not make the claim any less abstract. The claims are drafted in a result-oriented fashion, without the requisite specificity needed to provide a nonabstract technological solution. By failing to explain the technology details of making predictions of ball movement using imagery, it is reasonable that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the computer system is limited to a generic computer implementation with generic network connection. These additional elements as presented are directed to the components amount to merely field of use type limitations and/or extra solution activity to provide a communication between computers to pass on information.
Step 2B
Step 2B in the analysis requires us to determine whether the claims do significantly more than simply describe that abstract method. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297. We must examine the limitations of the claims to determine whether the claims contain an "inventive concept" to "transform" the claimed abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 1298). The transformation of an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter "requires 'more than simply stat[ing] the [abstract idea] while adding the words 'apply it."' Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294) (alterations in original). "A claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features' to ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].'" Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297) (alterations in original). Those "additional features" must be more than "well-understood, routine, conventional activity." Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298.
The present claims include the additional elements other than the abstract idea which include one or more computers processing communications with different remote computing devices over a computer communications network. By failing to explain the technology details of making predictions of ball movement using imagery, it is reasonable that the broadest reasonable interpretation of this computer system is limited to a generic computer implementation with generic network connection. The computer implementation merely helps to establish a communication between different computers through the communication established through generic network. The claim fails to improve the functioning of the computer or provide any improvement to another technology or technical field.
The claims are generally linked to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer over generic network. When looked at individually and as a whole, the claim limitations are determined to be an abstract idea without "significantly more," and thus not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lundback et al. [US20110022202], hereinafter Lundback, in view of Broadie et al. [US20230108761], hereinafter Broadie.
Regarding claim 7, Lundback discloses a data processing system adapted for billiard ball movement prediction, the system comprising:
a host computing platform comprising one or more computers, each with memory and one or processing units including one or more processing cores (Fig. 1);
a billiard ball movement prediction module comprising computer program instructions enabled while executing in the memory of at least one of the processing units of the host computing platform (Fig. 2) to perform:
receiving captured imagery of different billiard balls while in motion ([0031], “the imaging system 12 captures images 13 that include the playing surface 26 of the billiard table 24. The tracking module 18 tracks the real-time positions of each of one or more billiard game objects in relation to the billiard table 24 based on the captured images”);
submitting each said captured imagery to an inference engine trained to predict a metric of movement of the pool ball based upon the captured imagery ([0062], “In one embodiment of the invention, billiard balls are predicted to continue to move at their current velocity, where velocity is measured by dividing the difference in ball location between successive captured images by the time between the capturing of the images”).
However, Lundback does not explicitly disclose network communications circuitry disposed within the one or more computers and processing communications with different remote computing devices over a computer communications network; and, transmitting predicted metrics of movement of respective ones of the billiard balls for each of the captured imagery to corresponding ones of the remote computing devices.
Nevertheless, Broadie teaches in a like invention, network communications circuitry disposed within the one or more computers and processing communications with different remote computing devices over a computer communications network; and, transmitting predicted metrics to remote computing devices ([0042], “The processor 104 accesses the reference ball flight data 120 and executes the predictive model 106 to transform the reference ball flight data 120 to a second dataset defining predicted ball flight characteristics 134 for one or more candidate clubs” and [0174], “The computing device 1500 may be implemented in a networked or cloud-computing environment using logical connections of a network interface 1503 to one or more remote devices, such as a remote computer”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by Lundback, to have the network communications with remote computing devices to transmit predicted metrics to remote computing devices, as taught by Broadie, in order to make it more convenient for the users from remote locations to access the predicted metrics.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lundback and Broadie discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the inference engine is trained with annotated video imagery including known speed, revolutions, direction (Lundback, [0062], “In one embodiment of the invention, billiard balls are predicted to continue to move at their current velocity, where velocity is measured by dividing the difference in ball location between successive captured images by the time between the capturing of the images”).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lundback and Broadie discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the metric is velocity (Lundback, [0062], “In one embodiment of the invention, billiard balls are predicted to continue to move at their current velocity”).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Lundback and Broadie discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the metric is an angular direction (Lundback, Fig. 8 and [0130], “The magnitudes of the ripples are an increasing function of the magnitudes of the respective velocities 122, 124, 126 of the billiard balls 116-120”).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Lundback and Broadie discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the metric is a number of revolutions (Broadie, [0037], “The predicted ball flight characteristics for a given candidate club can include a predicted spin rate, a predicted launch angle, a predicted ball speed, a predicted total distance, and/or a predicted carry distance”).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Lundback and Broadie discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the remote computing devices each capture corresponding ones of the captured imagery of the respective ones of the billiard balls and the inference engine communicates with the remote computing devices from over the computer communications device (Lundback, Fig. 1, [0031], “the imaging system 12 captures images 13 that include the playing surface 26 of the billiard table 24. The tracking module 18 tracks the real-time positions of each of one or more billiard game objects in relation to the billiard table 24 based on the captured images” and Broadie, [0042], “The processor 104 accesses the reference ball flight data 120 and executes the predictive model 106 to transform the reference ball flight data 120 to a second dataset defining predicted ball flight characteristics 134 for one or more candidate clubs” and [0174], “The computing device 1500 may be implemented in a networked or cloud-computing environment using logical connections of a network interface 1503 to one or more remote devices, such as a remote computer”).
Regarding claims 1-6, please refer to the claim rejections of claims 7-12.
Regarding claims 13-18, please refer to the claim rejections of claims 7-12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YINGCHUAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1375. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 4:30 M-F.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/YINGCHUAN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715