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 5/14/26. Claims 1-5, 10, 12, 19 and 20 are amended. Claims 1-15, 19 and 20 are pending.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2016/0217325 A1 to Bose et al. (hereinafter “Bose”) in view of US Publication No. 2008/0287204 A1 to Stremmel et al. (hereinafter “Stremmel”).
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 associated with movement of a bowling ball on a surface during a sporting session, wherein the one or more frames are captured by one or more camera (paragraphs [0067], [0068], [0112], [0114], [0329] – cameras capture movement of ball, including bowling balls, during a session);
determine a state associated with throwing the bowling ball based on the one or more frames (paragraphs [0055], [0114], [0290]-[0293], [0317], [0329] – state of ball is determined in frames); and
output an indication of the path to be displayed on a display element (paragraphs [0045], [0046], [0055], [0114], [0197], [0317], [0329] – ball path is predicted and displayed).
Bose lacks specifically disclosing, and Stremmel discloses perform an assessment of the surface on which the bowling ball is thrown, wherein the assessment includes an analysis of at least one of: an evenness of the surface or friction in various areas of the surface; predict a path of the bowling ball as thrown on the surface based on the state associated with the bowling ball and the assessment of the surface (Fig. 2, paragraphs [0004]-[0006], [0064]-[0068] – bowling ball path is predicted based on surface including evenness and friction of surface). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of the surface to determine the path of the ball in order to create more accurate results, thereby improving predictability.
Concerning claims 2, and 20, Bose discloses wherein the state associated with throwing the bowling ball comprises a posture of a person throwing the bowling ball prior to the bowling ball being thrown (paragraphs [0013], [0024], [0045], [0049], [0055], [0114], [0203], [0317], [0329] – posture of person is analyzed when engaging with the ball).
Concerning claim 3, Bose lacks specifically disclosing, however, Stremmel discloses wherein the state associated with throwing the bowling ball comprises at least one of a position, motion, or spin associated with the bowling ball (Fig. 2, paragraphs [0004]-[0006], [0064]-[0068] – bowling ball path is predicted based on surface including evenness and friction of surface). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of the surface to determine the path of the ball in order to create more accurate results, thereby improving predictability.
Concerning claim 4, Bose discloses 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 bowling 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 bowling ball (paragraphs [0034], [0044], [0046], [0055], [0090], [0279] – control signal provide notice to change direction).
Concerning claim 13, Bose lacks specifically disclosing, however, Stremmel 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 (Fig. 2, paragraphs [0004]-[0006], [0047]-[0051], [0064]-[0068] – bowling ball path is predicted based on surface including evenness and friction of surface). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of the surface to determine the path of the ball in order to create more accurate results, thereby improving predictability.
Concerning claim 14, Bose lacks specifically disclosing, however, Stremmel 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 (Fig. 2, paragraphs [0004]-[0006], [0047]-[0051], [0064]-[0068] – bowling ball path is predicted based on surface including evenness and friction of surface). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of the surface to determine the path of the ball in order to create more accurate results, thereby improving predictability.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot based on the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed in the PTO-892.
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 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
Prosecution Insights