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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph 0038, line 1, "baseball605" should read "baseball 605".
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the terms "Hawkeye" and "Yakkertech", which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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 1-20 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.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claims 1-20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 1
Each of claims 8-15 is directed to a method or process. Each of claims 1-7 and 16-20 is directed towards an apparatus or a machine that is configured to carry out the method claims. As such each of claims 1-20 falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Each of Claims 1-20 recites an apparatus of method for determining and generating a graphic visualization of a seam shifted wake force, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) or a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Specifically, independent claim 1 (and its dependent claims 2-7) recites a system for determining and generating a graphic visualization of a ball flight parameter, comprising:
a ball flight tracking system configured to detect a ball in flight, the ball flight tracking system detecting seam orientation (additional element);
a processor coupled to the ball flight tracking system (additional element) and configured to determine a hemisphere plane angle and seam angle of the ball in flight (making a mathematical calculations, which is grouped as a mathematical concept and/or an evaluation or judgement in the human mind, which is grouped as a mental process) and to determine a coefficient of a seam shifted wake force based on the determined hemisphere plane angle and seam angle (making a mathematical calculations, which is grouped as a mathematical concept and/or an evaluation or judgement in the human mind, which is grouped as a mental process), the processor further configured to calculate the seam shifted wake force based on the determined coefficient of the seam shifted wake force for multiple locations on the ball (making a mathematical calculations, which is grouped as a mathematical concept and/or an evaluation or judgement in the human mind, which is grouped as a mental process), and generate a visualization of the seam shifted wake force on the multiple locations on the ball (making a mathematical calculations, which is grouped as a mathematical concept and/or an evaluation or judgement in the human mind, which is grouped as a mental process);
and an output device coupled to the processor to output the visualization of the seam shifted wake force on the ball to enhance pitch analysis and accurate pitch design (additional element).
As indicated above, independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-7 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea, and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract, or represent insignificant extra-solution activity or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the claimed function/steps are performed.
Specifically, independent claim 8 (and its dependent claims 9-15) recites a method for determining and generating a graphic visualization of a seam shifted wake force on an object in flight, the object having a seam thereon, the method comprising:
with a tracking system configured to track the object in flight, determining seam orientation of the seams of the object at different times during the flight (additional element);
with a processor (additional element), using the determined seam orientation to calculate a seam shifted wake force at different points on the object (making a mathematical calculations, which is grouped as a mathematical concept and/or an evaluation or judgement in the human mind, which is grouped as a mental process); and with the processor, modeling effects of the seam shifted wake force on a trajectory of the object to support design of a desired trajectory of the object (making a mathematical calculations, which is grouped as a mathematical concept and/or an evaluation or judgement in the human mind, which is grouped as a mental process).
As indicated above, independent claim 8 recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Furthermore, dependent claims 9-15 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea, and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract, or represent insignificant extra-solution activity or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the claimed function/steps are performed.
Specifically independent claim 16 (and its dependent claims 17-20) recites a computer programming product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium, the medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to:
receive input from a tracking system configured to track an object in flight including determination of an orientation of seams of the object at different times during the flight (additional element);
use the seam orientation to calculate a seam shifted wake force at different points on the object (making a mathematical calculations, which is grouped as a mathematical concept and/or an evaluation or judgement in the human mind, which is grouped as a mental process);
and model effects of the seam shifted wake force on a trajectory of the object to support design of a desired trajectory of the object (making a mathematical calculations, which is grouped as a mathematical concept and/or an evaluation or judgement in the human mind, which is grouped as a mental process).
As indicated above, independent claim 16 recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Furthermore, dependent claims 17-20 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea, and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract, or represent insignificant extra-solution activity or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the claimed function/steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1, 8, and 16 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-7, 9-15, and 17-20) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1, 8, and 16), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). More specifically, the additional elements of: a ball flight tracking system configured to detect a ball in flight, the ball flight tracking system detecting seam orientation, a processor coupled to the ball flight tracking system and an output device coupled to the processor to output the visualization of the seam shifted wake force on the ball to enhance pitch analysis and accurate pitch design, as recited in independent Claim 1; a tracking system configured to track the object in flight, determining seam orientation of the seams of the object at different times during the flight and a processor, as recited in independent claim 8; and receiving input from a tracking system configured to track an object in flight including determination of an orientation of seams of the object at different times during the flight, as recited in independent claim 16. Per Applicant’s specification, the processor is nothing more than a general-purpose computer (e.g., Paragraph 0072, lines 8-11 of Applicant’s specification) and the limitations as recited do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 8, and 16 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental processes and mathematical concepts) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., processor as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 8, and 16 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, independent Claims 1, 8, and 16 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
None of Claims 1-20 includes additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: a ball flight tracking system configured to detect a ball in flight, the ball flight tracking system detecting seam orientation, a processor coupled to the ball flight tracking system and an output device coupled to the processor to output the visualization of the seam shifted wake force on the ball to enhance pitch analysis and accurate pitch design, as recited in independent Claim 1; a tracking system configured to track the object in flight, determining seam orientation of the seams of the object at different times during the flight and a processor, as recited in independent claim 8; and receiving input from a tracking system configured to track an object in flight including determination of an orientation of seams of the object at different times during the flight, as recited in independent claim 16.
The applicant’s specification in paragraph 0037, lines 1-3, states that the ball flight tracking system is commercially available and well known to detect a ball in flight and detect seam orientation (see also paragraph 0052). The processor or computer is disclosed as a machine or computer system, within which instructions (for example, in the form of software components) for causing the machine or computer system to perform any of the features described in Applicant’s specification (paragraph 0071). Further, paragraph 72 discloses that the machine may be embodied as, for example, a server computer, a client computer, a personal computer (PC), a tablet computer, a laptop computer, a netbook, a set-top box (STB), a gaming and/or entertainment system, a smart phone, a mobile device, a wearable device (for example, a smart watch), and an Internet of Things (IoT) device. . Per Applicant’s specification, the output device is a display, a printer (0051, lines 1-4, shown in FIGS. 10A-10C). Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed terms processor and output device are reasonably construed as generic computing devices. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available technology, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the processor or output device. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional 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 MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-20 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) along with Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a) along with McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification f or any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the apparatuses, systems and methods of Claims 1-20 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1, 8, and 16 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the Claims 1-20 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-20 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Prior Art
The closest pieces of prior art are: Bauer et al. (US 2022/0406058).
Regarding claim 1, Bauer et al. (US 2022/0406058) discloses a system for determining and generating a graphic visualization of a ball flight parameter, comprising:
a ball flight tracking system configured to detect a ball in flight, the ball flight tracking system detecting seam orientation (Figure 3, element 300, and Abstract);
a processor (Paragraph 0059, line 1-2) coupled to the ball flight tracking system (Figure 3, element 300) and configured to; and
an output device (Paragraph 0060, line 1-4) coupled to the processor to output the visualization to enhance pitch analysis and accurate pitch design.
Regarding claim 8, Bauer et al. (US 2022/0406058 ) discloses a method for determining and generating a graphic visualization of a seam shifted wake force on an object in flight, the object having a seam thereon, the method comprising:
with a tracking system configured to track the object in flight, determining seam orientation of the seams of the object at different times during the flight (Figure 3, element 300, and Abstract);
with a processor (Paragraph 0059, line 1-2).
Regarding claim 16, Bauer et al. (US 2022/0406058 ) discloses a computer programming product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium, the medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to:
receive input from a tracking system configured to track an object in flight including determination of an orientation of seams of the object at different times during the flight (Claim 9);
The prior art references do not make obvious or disclose:
Determining a hemisphere plane angle and seam angle of the ball in flight and to determine a coefficient of a seam shifted wake force based on the determined hemisphere plane angle and seam angle,
the processor further configured to calculate the seam shifted wake force based on the determined coefficient of the seam shifted wake force for multiple locations on the ball, and generate a visualization of the seam shifted wake force on the multiple locations on the ball.
modeling effects of the seam shifted wake force on a trajectory of the object to support design of a desired trajectory of the object
However, a full determination of the claims being allowable will be completed with further search and consideration once the above rejections and objections are overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KALYN G YOUNGER whose telephone number is (571)272-0733. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/K.G.Y./ Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/NICHOLAS J. WEISS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights