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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant primarily contends that Kantorovich fails to teach or suggest the specific dual-condition evaluation recited in independent claim 11: (1) a rule set module that provides a score for a punch meeting a predetermined minimum punch force at a predetermined position of body segment data, and (2) an evaluation unit configured to output a score fully automatically only when both the punch force data (measured by the punching glove) and the body segment data (determined by the body segment recognition module) together satisfy the rule set. Applicant characterizes Kantorovich as merely a “monitoring and insight-generation system” whose hit counter at [0210] simply increments on any detected strike without the claimed rule-based, dual-input scoring logic. Applicant further asserts that Kantorovich’s classification models are used only for “action detection” (i.e., whether a punch occurred at all) and that Pysden cannot cure this deficiency because it relies on armor-based sensors rather than glove-based force sensors.
Examiner respectfully disagree. Kantorovich discloses far more than generic strike detection or passive monitoring. The reference explicitly describes an integrated, automated combat-sports scoring/quantification system that fuses both glove-derived punch force data and camera-derived body segment/pose data under stored rule sets (classification models) to determine and output valid scores/metrics in real time. The dual-condition requirement is satisfied because the system withholds or conditions the output of a score/insight/hit-counter increment until both inputs meet the rule-set criteria (minimum force threshold and correct anatomical target position).
The punching glove sensors provide the claimed “punch force data developing during a punch” ([0096], [0215]–[0217], [0223], [0284]). These sensors measure impact magnitude (force) in real time as the strike is delivered. Kantorovich does not rely on post-impact armor sensors (as in Pysden). The force data originates directly from the attacker’s glove, exactly as claimed. Simultaneously, the at least one camera and body segment recognition module (explicitly using OpenPose pose estimation) provide the claimed “body segment data” by detecting anatomical points, connecting them into segments, and determining 3D trajectories/positions of the athlete’s body ([0173]–[0174], [0325], [0260]). This module identifies the precise location of the strike relative to target zones (e.g., head, torso, or other valid scoring areas). The rule set module stores classification models/rules for a predetermined combat sport ([0041]–[0045], [0210], [0252], [0322], [0326]). These rules explicitly define a valid scoring event as one having (i) a predetermined minimum punch force and (ii) impact at a predetermined position of the opponent’s body segments (e.g., “hit on target zone like head/torso with sufficient impact; outcomes like hit/block/miss”). The rules do not trigger on force alone or position alone—they require the conjunction of both inputs. The evaluation unit (processing unit/server) is connected to both the glove (for force data) and the body segment recognition module (for position data), as well as the rule set module ([0046]–[0050], [0210], [0252], [0322], [0326]). It processes the combined inputs and outputs a score (or insight that functions as a score—e.g., hit counter increment, performance metric, or point value) fully automatically only when the dual conditions are met per the rule set. If either the force threshold or the positional requirement fails, no score is awarded. This is precisely the claimed logic: the evaluation unit “is configured to output a score fully automatically at an output when both the punch force measured by the punching glove and the body segment data determined by the body segment recognition module result in a score according to the rule set.”
Kantorovich’s hit counter at [0210] is not a simple “any-strike” tally. It is rule-driven and conditioned on the fused force and pose data. The reference repeatedly emphasizes that classification occurs only after comparing the combined sensor streams against thresholds and trained models that encode sport-specific scoring rules ([0149]–[0152], [0326]). The Office’s prior characterization of Kantorovich’s outputs as “hit counters, performance metrics” that constitute automated scoring directly reads on the claim. The use of the term “insight” or “characterization” in the reference does not avoid anticipation or obviousness. The claim does not require any particular label for the output, nor does it exclude systems that also provide analytics. A rule-compliant hit counter is automated score awarding in combat sports.
Pysden is combined not to supply the glove sensors (already present in Kantorovich) but to render explicit the conversion of Kantorovich’s classified, dual-condition hits into formal point-based or damage-value scores using a dedicated scoring machine and rule sets ([0109], [0139]–[0150]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to incorporate Pysden’s scoring logic into Kantorovich’s platform to achieve fully objective, referee-free judging, exactly the predictable improvement of turning raw metrics (hit counters) into standardized scores. The fact that Pysden uses armor sensors in one embodiment is irrelevant. The combination applies Pysden’s scoring technique to Kantorovich’s already-disclosed glove-force and body-segment inputs. Nothing in claim 11 requires the force data to come exclusively from the glove to the exclusion of all other sensors, nor does it prohibit supplementary armor data.
Thus, the combination of Kantorovich and Pysden teaches or suggests every limitation of independent claim 11, including the specific dual-condition rule-based evaluation that Applicant emphasizes. Claims 12–22, which depend from claim 11, are rejected for the same reasons. The grammatical amendment to claim 22 has been entered but does not affect patentability.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 11–22 is therefore maintained.
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 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.
Claim(s) 11-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANTOROVICH (US 2021/0001174 A1) in view of Pysden (US 2012/0203361 A1).
11. KANTOROVICH discloses a system (Fig. 1-3) for automated score awarding (via hit counter), [0210] in combat sports (e.g., martial arts), [0001], [0089]-[0090], comprising:
at least one punching glove for measuring punch force data developing during a punch (i.e. force data collected from sensors located in fighter’s glove), [0096], [0215]-[0217], [0223], [0284];
at least one camera for capturing images of at least one athlete [0101], [0114], [0174];
a body segment recognition module (pose estimation via OpenPose) connected to the at least one camera for determining body segment data of the athlete from the images captured by the at least one camera [0173]-[0174], [0325];
a rule set module (classification models/rules in the processing unit), in which a rule set of a predetermined combat sport is stored, wherein the rule set provides a score/insight for a punch with a predetermined minimum punch force at a predetermined position of body segment data (e.g., hit on target zone like head/torso with sufficient impact; outcomes like hit/block/miss), [0041]-[0045], [0210], [0252], [0322], [0326];
an evaluation unit (processing unit/server), which is connected to the punching glove for receiving the punch force data, which is connected to the body segment recognition module for receiving the body segment data, and which is connected to the rule set module for receiving the at least one rule set; wherein the evaluation unit is configured to output a score fully automatically at an output when both the punch force measured by the punching glove and the body segment data determined by the body segment recognition module result in a score according to the rule set (e.g., hit counters, performance metrics), [0046]-[0050], [0210], [0252], [0322], [0326].
KANTOROVICH implicitly discloses automatic scoring as discussed above. Pysden teaches an electronic scoring system for martial arts that explicitly calculates and awards scores (e.g., points or damage values) based on similar force/location data and rule sets, using a scoring machine for automated outputs [0109], [0139]-[0150]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify KANTOROVICH's insight-generation system by incorporating Pysde's explicit scoring mechanisms (e.g., converting classified hits to points based on rules), to enable objective, automated judging in combat sports without relying on human referees, as both references aim to quantify strike effectiveness for performance evaluation. This is a predictable use of known scoring techniques in a monitoring context, enhancing KANTOROVICH's metrics (e.g., hit counters) into formal scores.
12. KANTOROVICH and Pysden discloses the system according to claim 11, further comprising a scoring counter system, which is connected to the evaluation unit for receiving the scores output by the evaluation unit, and a video verification system connected to the at least one camera, wherein the video verification system is configured to output the images captured by the at least one camera of a period of time to be verified, and a score of the scoring counter system is updatable or correctable, respectively, after verification on the video verification system, KANTOROVICH [0200]-[0210].
13. KANTOROVICH and Pysden discloses the system according to claim 12, wherein the video verification system is connected to the evaluation unit and wherein the evaluation unit is configured to output a signal for verifying an action of the athlete to the video verification system when only a predetermined punch force or only a predetermined position of body segment data according to the rule set of the predetermined combat sport is present, KANTOROVICH [0149]-[0152], [0200]-[0210].
14. KANTOROVICH and Pysden discloses the system according to claim 11, wherein at least two rule sets of respectively different combat sports are stored in the rule set module and the rule set module has an interface for selecting the rule set used by the evaluation unit (Multiple rule sets/models for different combat events/sports are stored, selectable via an interface (e.g., user-configurable parameters) for evaluation), KANTOROVICH [0089], [0252], [0322], [0326].
15. KANTOROVICH and Pysden discloses the system according to claim 11, wherein the body segment recognition module is configured to recognize anatomical points on the athlete recognized in the images for determining the body segment data and to connect the body segment data by means of segments, KANTOROVICH [0173]-[0174], [0325].
16. KANTOROVICH and Pysden discloses the system according to claim 11, wherein the body segment data determined by the body segment recognition module comprises 3D trajectories of recognized body segments (via depth cameras/multi-view), KANTOROVICH [0260].
17. KANTOROVICH and Pysden discloses the system according to claim 11, wherein the punching glove is further configured to record speed data and/or acceleration data, wherein the system further comprises a technique recognition module, which is connected to the punching glove for receiving the speed data and/or acceleration data and which is connected to the body segment recognition module for receiving the body segment data, wherein the technique recognition module is configured to recognize a technique of the athlete from the body segment data in combination with the speed data and/or acceleration data, wherein the evaluation unit is connected to the technique recognition module and takes the recognized technique into account in the score awarding, KANTOROVICH [0096], [0215]-[0217], [0223], [0284].
18. KANTOROVICH and Pysden discloses the system according to claim 17, wherein the recognized technique comprises a punch technique determined by the speed data and/or acceleration data and/or an overall movement technique recognized by the body segment data, KANTOROVICH [0270].
19. KANTOROVICH and Pysden discloses the system according to claim 11, further comprising a machine learning module, which is connected to the evaluation unit, the punching glove, the body segment recognition module, and/or the technique recognition module, wherein the machine learning module comprises an interface for receiving feedback regarding a score and/or a technique and is configured to adapt an evaluation logic of the evaluation unit and/or of the technique recognition module or to generate a new rule set for the rule set module, KANTOROVICH [0149], [0165], [0173]-[0174], [0220].
20. KANTOROVICH and Pysden discloses the system according to claim 11, wherein the evaluation unit is configured to output combat statistics, the technique recognition module is configured to output technique statistics, the punching glove is configured to output technique intensity data, the body segment recognition module is configured to output a technique animation and/or kinematic analysis data, and the cameras are configured to output visual data, KANTOROVICH [0110], [0164], (Fig. 3 & 8).
21. KANTOROVICH and Pysden discloses the system according to claim 11, wherein the at least one camera can comprises four cameras, KANTOROVICH [0036]-[0039], [0194], [0270].
22. KANTOROVICH and Pysden discloses the system according to claim 15, wherein the anatomical points include joint points and wherein the segments include at least ten, at least fifteen, or at least twenty segments (Anatomical points include joints; segments encompass at least 10-20 (e.g., full-body keypoints like shoulders, elbows, knees, implying multiple segments), KANTOROVICH [0038]-[0040], [0101], [0174]-[0175],
Filing of New or Amended Claims
The examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the original disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. See Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263, 191 USPQ at 97 (“[T]he PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). However, when filing an amendment an applicant should show support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims. See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 (“Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”). Please see MPEP 2163 (II) 3. (b)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SENG H LIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3301. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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, David L. Lewis can be reached at (571) 272-7673. 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.
/Seng H Lim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715