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 . This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply filed 1/27/26, electing Species I. Claims 1-15, 19 and 20 are pending.
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 1-15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites an apparatus for path analysis, comprising: a memory; and one or more processors coupled to the memory. The limitation of receive one or more frames capturing image data associated with movement of a ball on a surface during a sporting session, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “memory” and “one or more processors,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “memory” and “one or more processors,” language, “receive” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally making note of another user playing a sport. Similarly, the limitations of: determine, perform, predict, and output are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The same interpretation is applied to the remaining steps in claim 1. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites a couple additional elements – memory and one or more processors. The memory and one or more processors are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor implementing a step) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using memory and one or more processors amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Similar reasoning is applied to claims 2-15, 19 and 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Publication No. 2016/0217325 A1 to Bose et al. (hereinafter “Bose”).
Concerning claim 1, Bose discloses an apparatus for path analysis, comprising: a memory; and one or more processors coupled to the memory (Fig 1A, paragraph [0192]), the one or more processors being configured to:
receive one or more frames capturing image data associated with movement of a ball on a surface during a sporting session (paragraphs [0067], [0068], [0114], [0329] – cameras capture movement of ball during session);
determine a state associated with throwing the ball based on the one or more frames (paragraphs [0055], [0114], [0290]-[0293], [0317], [0329] – state of ball is determined in frames);
perform an assessment of the surface on which the ball is thrown (paragraphs [0055], [0114], [0290]-[0293], [0317], [0329] – surface assessment is taken into consideration);
predict a path of the ball as thrown on the surface based on the state associated with the ball and the assessment of the surface (paragraphs [0046], [0055], [0114], [0197], [0317], [0329] – ball path is predicted and displayed); and
output an indication of the path to be displayed on a display element (paragraphs [0046], [0055], [0114], [0197], [0317], [0329] – ball path is predicted and displayed).
Concerning claims 2, and 20, Bose discloses wherein the state associated with throwing the ball comprises a posture of a person throwing the ball prior to the ball being thrown (paragraphs [0024], [0055], [0114], [0203], [0317], [0329] – posture of person is analyzed when engaging with the ball).
Concerning claim 3, Bose discloses wherein the state associated with throwing the ball comprises at least one of a position, motion, or spin associated with the ball (paragraphs [0024], [0049], [0055], [0114], [0203], [0317], [0329] – position and motion associated with the ball in analyzed).
Concerning claim 4, Bose discloses wherein the ball comprises a bowl, and wherein the surface comprises a bowling lane surface (paragraph [0114] – the invention is applicable to bowling).
Concerning claim 5, Bose discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to control an automatic ball throwing device to throw a second ball on the path (paragraphs [0046], [0055], [0114], [0197], [0279] – secondary models of ball projectiles may be used to compare user performance).
Concerning claim 6, Bose discloses wherein the indication of the path to be displayed includes graphics data (paragraphs [0046], [0055], [0114], [0197], [0317], [0329] – ball path is predicted and displayed using graphics data).
Concerning claim 7, Bose discloses wherein the graphics data is outputted to an augmented reality device (paragraphs [0046], [0055], [0114], [0197], [0317], [0329] – ball path is predicted and displayed using AR).
Concerning claim 8, Bose discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: generate graphics showing an obstacle on the surface; and output the graphics to be displayed as an overlay on imagery of the surface (paragraphs [0046], [0055], [0114], [0197], [0319], [0329] – objects on surface are shown and displayed).
Concerning claim 9, Bose discloses wherein the graphics are displayed on a display of an augmented reality (AR) device (paragraphs [0046], [0055], [0114], [0197], [0317], [0329] – ball path is predicted and displayed using AR).
Concerning claim 10, Bose discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine whether the ball interacts with a virtual representation of the obstacle on the surface; and output an indication of the interaction (paragraphs [0046], [0055], [0114], [0197], [0319], [0329] – objects on surface and interactions are shown and displayed).
Concerning claim 11, Bose discloses wherein, to output the indication of the interaction, the one or more processors are configured to output a control signal to a haptic device (paragraphs [0034], [0044], [0046], [0055], [0090], [0279] – control signal is output to a haptic device).
Concerning claim 12, Bose discloses wherein the control signal causes the haptic device to change a direction of travel associated with the ball (paragraphs [0034], [0044], [0046], [0055], [0090], [0279] – control signal provide notice to change direction).
Concerning claim 13, Bose discloses wherein: to perform the assessment of the surface, the one or more processors are configured to identify a quality of the surface based on the one or more frames; and the one or more processors are further configured to output an indication of the quality of the surface (paragraphs [0055], [0114], [0290]-[0293], [0317], [0329] – quality of surface is determined).
Concerning claim 14, Bose discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: estimate a time when the surface will need to be maintained based on the quality of the surface; and output an indication of the time (paragraphs [0055], [0114], [0290]-[0293], [0317], [0329] – quality of surface is determined and updated).
Concerning claim 15, Bose discloses wherein the one or more frames comprise multiple frames captured from one or more perspectives from one or more cameras (paragraphs [0067], [0068], [0114], [0329] – cameras capture movement of ball during session).
Concerning claim 19, see the rejection of claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed in the PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALINA D BLAISE whose telephone number is (571)270-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 7:00 am - 5:00 pm (PT).
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.
MALINA D. BLAISE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/MALINA D. BLAISE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715