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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 16a-c, 20, 22, 23, 24a-c. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification does not include the following reference character(s) shown in the figures: 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 16a-c, 20, 22, 23, 24a-c. Appropriate correction is required for the above objections.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) the mentally performable actions of analyzing motion data, identifying instances of spin moves performed by the wearer, and evaluating the effectiveness of identified spin moves based on predetermined criteria. Such actions require observation, analysis, judgement and opinion and are thus performable within the mind or with the help of pen and paper. A coach, for example, could perform such analysis by observing in real-time a player’s spin move and the player’s success at such a move.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a), as the various sensors, processor, communication module and feedback mechanism all function in their usual capacity; there is no application or use of a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition, but only calculation of data – see Vanda Memo; there is no application of the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b), but only generic computerized structure and sensors; there is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing because data is collected, processed and output, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and there is no application or use of the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of sports analysis, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the wearable device with sensors integrated therein represents insignificant data gathering. All practices of the abstract idea would require such data input. The embedded processor is generic and would also be required in any practice of the invention in order to allow computation of the received data. The reference to machine learning represents an insignificant field-of-use limitation involving the use of generic computers and effectively attempts to simply apply the abstract idea using computer technology. The communication module is only nominally related to the invention as a means to allow the communication of data. It represents insignificant data gathering that would be required in order to assess the effectiveness of any spin move (e.g., if the spin move was effective in avoiding tackle by another player). The combination of these elements is also insufficient as the elements function together in their usual capacity to collect data, process data, and communicate data.
The additional elements are further WURC in the art alone and in combination. Motion sensors by definition are known to capture motion activity and would be required in order to provide the abstract idea with the appropriate data. The applicant gives little direction as to the use of any specific processor. Embedded processors are well-known in the art as a means to optimize various computational tasks and are found in a wide variety of devices. All computerized systems require processing. Communication modules are also WURC in the art as all systems require a means of receiving data and are necessary for the performance of the abstract idea. The feedback mechanism would also be required in any system attempting to inform players of their training progress. The applicant further fails to disclose any particular mechanism for feedback. If any items are to be considered not well-understood or unconventional, a detailed description is required to explain the unconventionality. The combination of said elements is also WURC as all computerized systems attempting to collect information on the success or failure of sports training would require sensors and communications devices associated with the individual players to share information, processors to analyze the collected information, and a feedback mechanism to relay the results of such analysis to the individual player(s).
Claims 2, 5 and 6 contain no new additional elements.
The use of a visual display, audio feedback or haptic feedback in claim 3 is only nominally related to the invention as a means to indicate the results of the analysis and is therefore insignificant. As stated above, all applications of the judicial exception would require some form of feedback. Visual, audio and haptic feedback is also WURC in any computerized system attempting to convey results in human perceivable form.
The server component of claim 4 is considered to represent insignificant extra-solution activity. Servers are WURC as they permit the flow and control of data between various systems. Such a means would be necessary to coordinate the collection of information. The applicant further gives no details as to any unconventionality associated with the server.
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 (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 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conza et al (US2015/0328516 A1) hereinafter (Conza) in view of Austrlade et al (9,517,417) hereinafter (Austrlade).
Claim 1, Conza discloses a system for real-time detection, analysis, and feedback of football spin moves (paragraph 0187), comprising:
a wearable device (athletic equipment 104 could be wearable by an individual) configured to be worn by a football player (paragraphs 0076-0078);
one or more motion sensors (sensor module 102) integrated into said wearable device, said sensors being adapted to capture motion data during play (paragraphs 0134, 0138, 0304);
an embedded processor (processor 110; paragraph 0372) housed within said wearable device;
a machine algorithm (paragraphs 0081, 0158), residing on said embedded processor, specifically trained to:
a. analyze said motion data, b. identify instances of spin moves performed by the wearer, and c. evaluate the effectiveness of identified spin moves based on predetermined criteria (paragraph 0066);
a communication module in said wearable device configured to receive real-time positional and play data from other players on the field (paragraph 0089, 0098, 0110, 0113-0114);
a feedback mechanism to provide instantaneous feedback to the player regarding the effectiveness of their spin move and potential adjustments (paragraphs 0085, 0149).
Conza discloses the claimed device with the exception of the machine being a machine learning algorithm. However, as disclosed by Austrlade (column 48, lines 1-18) it is known in the art to utilize machine learning algorithms. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used such a machine for Conza’s device given that Austrlade teaches such a machine is often used to develop a particular pattern recognition algorithm that is based on statistical inference.
Claim 2, Conza as modified above further shows said machine learning algorithm is optimized for a minimal memory footprint (paragraph 0087-0088, 0112, 0282) allowing for efficient execution on the embedded processor. Conza teaches that the system may employ a compression algorithm to optimize memory utilization. This practice may allow the file 700 on the memory device to take up less memory space.
Claim 3, Conza shows the feedback mechanism includes one or more of: a visual display, audio feedback, and haptic feedback (paragraphs 0085, 0149).
Claim 4, Conza shows a server component (server 302; paragraphs 0114-0116), distinct from said wearable device, adapted to collect, process, and transmit the real-time positional and play data from other players on the field to the wearable device's communication module.
Claim 5, Conza shows the machine learning algorithm uses both the motion data (paragraphs 0086, 0311) from the sensors and the real-time positional and play data (paragraph 0065) from the server component to evaluate the effectiveness of a spin move within the context of ongoing play (paragraph 0187).
Claim 6, Conza shows the wearable device is configured to guide the player in real-time to modify their spin move to enhance its effectiveness during play (paragraph 0078).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hohteri (9,881,206); DeAngelis et al (9,795,830); Gennario, Jr. (9,427,623).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MITRA ARYANPOUR whose telephone number is (571) 272-4405. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon, Thurs, Fri 8:00am to 4:00pm, Wed 8:00-2:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eugene Kim can be reached on 571-272-4463. 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.
/MITRA ARYANPOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/ma/
29 November 2025