Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/411,574

PLAYER MONITORING SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR EFFICIENTLY PROCESSING SENSOR DATA

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Jan 12, 2024
Examiner
LIM, SENG HENG
Art Unit
3715
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Pillar Vision Inc.
OA Round
4 (Non-Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
4-5
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
627 granted / 949 resolved
-3.9% vs TC avg
Strong +29% interview lift
Without
With
+28.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
51 currently pending
Career history
1000
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
13.2%
-26.8% vs TC avg
§103
39.0%
-1.0% vs TC avg
§102
27.2%
-12.8% vs TC avg
§112
8.8%
-31.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 949 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection below. 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 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) 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15-19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 29, 31, 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kiraly (US 2007/0298898 A1). 1. Kiraly discloses a player monitoring system for efficient processing of player performance data (e.g., golf swing analysis system with automated ball placement detection and image capture for launch monitoring), comprising: a first sensor configured to capture first images of a player playing or practicing a sporting game in a playing space, the first sensor having a first resolution and a first frame rate (i.e. high-speed, low-resolution image capture device monitors a small zone in trigger mode to detect ball placement and motion events, capturing images for initial event detection), [0039]; a second sensor configured to capture second images of the player playing or practicing the sporting game in the playing space, the second sensor having a second resolution greater than the first resolution or a second frame rate greater than the first frame rate (i.e. higher resolution image capture device activated in response to the first sensor's detection, capturing detailed images for performance analysis), [0040]-[0041]; a buffer configured to buffer the second images (i.e. system buffers or stores captured images from the high-resolution device for subsequent analysis, as part of the launch monitor's processing of selected frames post-trigger), (Fig. 3), [0036], [0038]; at least one processor programmed with instructions, that when executed by the at least one processor [0047], cause the at least one processor to: receive the first images (i.e. launch monitor receives images from the high-speed, low-resolution device for initial detection), [0039]; analyze the first images to detect an event in the first images, wherein the event is a launch of an object by the player (i.e. analyzes low-resolution images to detect ball placement and swing initiation/motion events, including the launch or impact with the ball), [0039]; determine, based on the first images, a time of the event (i.e. determines timing of the event, such as ball impact/launch, based on motion detection in the monitored zone), [0039]-[0040]; based on the determined time and in response to detection of the event in the first images, select a plurality of image frames of the second images for evaluation of a performance of the player in performing an action associated with the event (i.e. selects and captures relevant high-resolution frames timed around the detected event for evaluating swing and launch performance), [0040]-[0041]; analyze the plurality of image frames selected by the at least one processor to assess body motion associated with movement of a body part of the player while launching the object (i.e. analyzes selected high-resolution frames to track and assess golfer's body and club motion during the swing and launch), [0040]-[0041]; evaluate the performance of the player in performing the action based on the body motion assessed by the at least one processor (i.e. evaluates performance metrics like club speed, ball speed, launch angle, and spin based on the motion analysis), and provide feedback indicative of a performance of the player in playing or practicing the sporting game (i.e. provides feedback to the golfer based on the analyzed performance data, such as through display or audio), [0030]. 2. Kiraly discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the event is a shot of the object by the player toward a target (i.e. golf ball struck toward a target such as a hole or fairway), and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: determine a trajectory of the object based on the first images (i.e. low-resolution sensor detects initial motion path and launch trajectory in the monitored zone); and determine the time of the event based on the trajectory (i.e. timing of launch determined from the detected motion path), [0039]-[0041]. 3. Kiraly discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to determine a trajectory parameter indicative of the trajectory (i.e. calculates parameters such as velocity, launch angle, and spin from the trajectory), wherein the feedback is based on the trajectory parameter (i.e. feedback provided based on these performance metrics), [0030], [0045], [0048]. 4. Kiraly discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the at least one trajectory parameter includes an entry angle or entry position of the object relative to the target (i.e. includes launch angle and projected landing position relative to the target area), [0045], [0048], [0073]. 5. Kiraly discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the event is a shot, dribble, kick, or pass of the object by the player (i.e. event is a golf shot/strike of the ball), and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: determine a trajectory of the object based on the first images (i.e. low-resolution sensor detects initial motion path and launch trajectory); and determine the time of the event based on the trajectory (i.e. timing based on the detected motion path), [0039]-[0041]. 7. Kiraly discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the playing space is a court or field for the sporting game (i.e. golf field or course), [0064]. 8. Kiraly discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to permit at least one image frame of the second images to be discarded without processing the at least one image frame for evaluation of the performance of the player in performing the action (i.e. system selects specific high-resolution frames for analysis, implying non-selected frames are discarded without further processing to save resources), [0045], [0047]. 10. Kiraly discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to define, in response to the event, a window of time that includes the time of the event (i.e. predicts capture windows timed around the detected event), wherein selection of the plurality of image frames is based on the window of time, and wherein each of the plurality of image frames is captured within the window of time (i.e. captures occur within the defined window), [0039]-[0041]. 11. Kiraly discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to permit at least one image frame of the second images to be discarded without processing the at least one image frame for evaluation of the performance of the player in performing the action (i.e. non-selected frames discarded), wherein the plurality of image frames immediately precedes the at least one image frame (i.e. selected frames precede later discarded ones in the buffered sequence), [0036], [0038], [0045], [0047]. 15-19, 21, 24, 25, 29. Kiraly discloses a player monitoring method for efficient processing of player performance data, comprising: capturing, with a first sensor, first images of a player playing or practicing a sporting game in a playing space, the first sensor having a first resolution and a first frame rate; capturing, with a second sensor, second images of the player playing or practicing the sporting game in the playing space, the second sensor having a second resolution greater than the first resolution or a second frame rate greater than the first frame rate; buffering the second images; analyzing, with at least one processor, the first images to detect an event in the first images, wherein the event is a launch of an object by the player, determining, with the at least one processor based on the first images, a time of the event, selecting, with the at least one processor based on the determined time and in response to detection of the event in the first images, a plurality of image frames of the second images for evaluation of a performance of the player in performing an action associated with the event; analyzing, with the at least one processor, the plurality of image frames selected by the selecting: based on the analyzing, assessing body motion associated with movement of a body part of the player while launching the object: evaluating the performance of the player in performing the action based on the assessing; and providing feedback indicative of a performance of the player in playing or practicing the sporting game as similarly discussed above. 31. Kiraly discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to discard at least one frame of the second images based on the window of time thereby reducing an amount of data processed by the at least one processor for evaluating the performance of the player in performing the action (i.e. non-selected frames discarded), and wherein the discarded at least one frame is associated with a time outside of the window of time (i.e. selected frames precede later discarded ones in the buffered sequence), [0036], [0038], [0045], [0047]. 33. Kiraly discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the window of time is from a predefined amount of time prior to the event to a predefined amount of time after the event [0039]-[0040], [0051], [0053]. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached USPTO form PTO-892. 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) 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 12, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 21, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Aug 26, 2024
Response Filed
Oct 01, 2024
Final Rejection — §102
Mar 06, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 07, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 14, 2025
Final Rejection — §102
Aug 19, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 27, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12589296
METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND DEVICES FOR DYNAMICALLY APPLYING EQUALIZER PROFILES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12569751
Somatosensory Interaction Method and Electronic Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12558622
INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12551804
METHOD FOR PROVIDING INTERACTIVE GAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12548406
GAMING SYSTEMS AND METHODS USING DYNAMIC GAMING INTERFACES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
66%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+28.7%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 949 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month