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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/18/26 has been entered.
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 1-6, 8-9, 12, 15-17 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 12, 15-17 and 24-26 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process that can be performed by a human being and/or a method of organizing human activity and/or training/employing a machine learning model.
In regard to Claims 1 and 17, the following limitations can be performed as a mental process by a human being in terms of claiming collecting data, analyzing that data, and providing outputs based on that analysis which has been held by the CAFC to be an abstract idea in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential); and/or recite a method of organizing human activity in terms of claiming the teaching/training/evaluation of a human subject’s which has been identified by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) as being a method of organizing human activity, in terms of the Applicant claiming:
[a] method for generating an audio feedback for a user interacting with a smart ball, the method comprising:
playing an audio sequence comprising a beat during an interaction session of the user with the smart ball;
receiving ball data [regarding] the smart ball […] the ball data being representative of an interaction session of the user with the smart ball;
processing the ball data […] to detect a given type of touch-event;
for each detection of the given type of touch-event, processing the ball data […] to generate one or more ball indicators for the detected touch-event, the one or more ball indicators comprising a timing of the occurrence of the touch-event;
processing the ball indicators […] to generate a performance indicator representative of a synchronization of the execution of the interaction session by the user with the beat of the audio sequence;
determining […] an audio feedback for the user based at least on the performance indicator, the audio feedback providing a feedback to the user on the synchronization of the execution of the interaction session by the user with the beat of the audio sequence; and
transmitting the audio feedback […].
In regard to the dependent claims, they also claim training/employing a machine learning model in a particular technological environment, which has been held by the CAFC in, e.g., Recentive Analytics to be an abstract idea under Mayo.
In regard to the dependent claims, they also claim an abstract idea to the extent that they merely claim further limitations that likewise could be performed as a mental process by a human being and/or a method of organizing human activity and/or training employing a machine learning model.
Furthermore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because to the extent that additional elements are claimed either alone or in combination such as, e.g., a computing device with a processing unit and a wireless communication interface; an audio device; a non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as computer code; and/or a smart ball comprising a ball, a wireless communication interface, at least one sensor including a high-range accelerometer, and a processing unit; and/or training/employing a machine learning model, these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering), to embody the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In this regard, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) in regard to “courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application…”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that taken individually, and also taken as an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g., a computing device with a processing unit and a wireless communication interface; an audio device; a non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as computer code; and/or a smart ball comprising a ball, a wireless communication interface, at least one sensor including a high-range accelerometer, and a processing unit; and/or training/employing a machine learning model, these are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements and are claimed for the well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of collecting and processing data and/or providing an analysis/outputs based on that processing. To the extent that an apparatus is claimed as an additional element said apparatus fails to qualify as a “particular machine” to the extent that it is claimed generally, merely implements the steps of Applicant’s claimed method, and is claimed merely for purposes of extra-solution activity or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(b). As evidence that these additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, Applicant’s specification discloses the support for these elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See, e.g., F1-3 in Applicant’s PGPUB and text regarding same; see, e.g., p74 specifically regarding employing a high-range accelerometer; and see, e.g., p92-93 regarding training/employing a machine learning model.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 12, 16-17, and 26, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PGPUB US 20150196811 A1 by Laurienzo et al (“Laurienzo”), in view of PGPUB US 20150379351 A1 by Dibenedetto et al (“Dibenedetto”).
In regard to Claim 1, Laurienzo teaches method for generating an audio feedback for a user interacting with a smart ball, the method comprising:
[…]
receiving ball data from the smart ball by a processing unit of a computing device […] the ball data being generated by an embedded monitoring platform comprised in the smart ball, the ball data being representative of the interaction session of the user with the smart ball;
(see, e.g., F2);
processing the ball data by the processing unit of a computing device to detect a given type of touch-event;
for each detection of the given type of touch-event, processing the ball data by the processing unit of the computing device to generate one or more ball indicators for the detected touch-event, the one or more ball indicators comprising a timing of the occurrence of the touch-event;
(see, e.g., F8, “SENSOR IS ABLE TO DETERMINE…BETWEEN KICKS” and p45);
processing the ball indicators by the processing unit of the computing device to generate a performance indicator representative of a synchronization of the execution of the interaction session by the user with [a certain tempo];
determining by the processing unit of the computing device [a] feedback for the user based at least on the performance indicator, the […] feedback providing a feedback to the user on the synchronization of the execution of the interaction session by the user with the [tempo];
and transmitting the […] feedback […] by the processing unit of the computing device
(see, e.g., F8, “DISPLAY = NUMBER OF KICKS REGISTERED”);
Furthermore, while Laurienzo teaches the smart ball being able to sync with a mobile device (see, e.g., p55), to the extent that the otherwise cited prior art may fail to specifically teach employing a HUD device that is in wireless communication with sensors in a smart ball and is employed to process motion data captured by that sensor, however, Dibenedetto teaches these limitations (see, e.g., p55-56 and 135);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the prior art contains a device/method/etc. which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components/steps/elements with other components; the substituted components and their functions were known in the art; one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another; and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have substituted the HUD device taught by Dibenedetto as the computing device otherwise taught by Laurienzo, in order to provide additional flexibility to the system.
Furthermore, to the extent that the otherwise cited prior art may fail to specifically teach providing an audio sequence via a speaker to the user as part of a soccer ball drill, Dibenedetto teaches these limitations (see, e.g., p117 and p60);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have added providing an audio cadence for a soccer drill via a speaker as taught by Dibenedetto to the method already taught by Laurienzo, in order to provide an additional drill and feedback to the user.
Furthermore, while Laurienzo teaches providing a visual output in regard to the number of juggles made, to the extent that the otherwise cited prior art may fail to specifically teach providing audio feedback, Dibenedetto teaches these limitations (see, e.g., p60);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have employed the audio feedback as taught by Dibenedetto to provide to the user the number of juggles made as taught by Laurienzo, in order to provide an additional drill and feedback to the user.
In regard to Claim 2, see rejection of Claim 1. To the extent that Applicant claims the duplication of functionality taught by the cited prior art this does not overcome the rejection given that now new or unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). For example, an “interaction session” could comprise multiple juggling sessions.
In regard to Claim 3-4, see rejection of Claim 1.
In regard to Claims 5-6 and 8-9, Laurienzo teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p37 and 45.
In regard to Claim 12, see rejection of Claim 1.
In regard to Claim 16, see rejection of Claim 1.
In regard to Claim 26, see rejection of Claim 1.
In regard to Claim 17, see rejection of Claim 1.
Claims 24-25, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laurienzo, in view of Dibenedetto, further in view of PGPUB US 20220035456 A1 by Huszar et al (“Huszar”)
In regard to Claims 24-25, Huszar teaches employing a machine learning model to identify soccer ball movements from captured sensor data (see, e.g., p31-33 and p35);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have employed a machine learning model as taught by Huszar to identify ball movements based on the sensor data taught by captured by the otherwise cited prior art, in order to better provide feedback to the user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections made under 35 USC 101 are not persuasive. The invention in McRO was held to be patent eligible because it resulted in an improved physical display of animated human faces:
PNG
media_image1.png
416
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
SAP America v. Investpic, slip. op., page 9.
Applicant does not, however, claim any physical display.
Applicant’s claimed invention is likewise distinguishable from that of Thales to the extent that Applicant’s does not improve the precision/accuracy of its claimed sensors:
PNG
media_image2.png
294
520
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thales Visionix v. United States, slip. op., page 11.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the art rejections are addressed by the updated statements of those rejections made supra.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is listed in the attached PTO-Form 892 and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights