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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 20, the limitation repeats the preceding limitation and is redundant. The examiner suggests that the limitation may be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 16, the limitation repeats the preceding limitation and is redundant. The examiner suggests that the limitation may be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdelmoneum et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2020/0197782, in view of Weinlader et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2021/0379446. As to Claim 1, Abdelmoneum teaches a ball machine (101) comprising an imagining system (111) configured to capture image data of a court, paragraphs 0031, 0032, and 0047, noting that an infrared camera captures data indicating that a ball has touched a court. The ball launching system may be configured to launch a ball to a user (player), paragraph 0032. A processor (105) may be configured to execute a process including initiating a workout routine (steps generated by the profiler) that includes launching, using the ball launching system, a sequence of balls to a user, paragraphs 0037 and 0043, noting that the instructions resulting from processing the steps cause the machine to control the speed of rotors for launching balls. The workout may include a sequence of balls, paragraph 0081, noting that after a player returns a first ball the system launches another ball. Abdelmoneum teaches selecting a shot type of a first ball to launch in the sequence, paragraph 0037 and 0055, noting that the system launches a ball to a particular player commensurate with the player’s level of skill as derived from the profile stored in memory, and the system is capable of controlling settings of the ball launching system to launch the first ball based on the selected shot type to the user, paragraph 0037. The system may be capable of determining a shot type returned by the user in response to the launched first ball, paragraphs 0033 and 0081, noting mapping the type of stroke and determining that the player returned the ball as expected. The system may select a shot type of the second ball to launch in the sequence, different from the first shot type, based on the determined shot type returned by the user in response to the launched first ball, and control the settings to adjust one or more parameters, for the second ball based on the determined shot type returned by the user, in response to the launched first ball, paragraph 0081, noting a more challenging or less challenging second ball. Abdelmoneum discloses the claimed invention except for indicating that the selection of the shot type of a first ball to launch in the sequence may be selected from a shot type as claimed. Weinlader teaches a ball machine (100) comprising a controller (110) and an imaging system (120), paragraph 0048. Weinlader teaches that the first ball to launch may be a serve, paragraph 0046. Further, Weinlader teaches that the ball machine may launch a responsive shot, which may be a drive, volley, lob, or drop shot, paragraph 0048, noting that the ball machine may launch a low shot that is fast or slow, a high shot, and noting timing of the return shot suggesting a volley. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Abdelmoneum with the capability of selecting a shot type for among the claimed group of shots, as taught by Weinlader, to provide Abdelmoneum with a known substitute shot type selection. As to Claims 3 and 14, Abdelmoneum teaches that a shot type may be selected based on the position of the user on the court, paragraph 0039. It is inherent that placing a ball near or far from a player at a determined location of the court necessarily requires the selection of an appropriate type of shot. As to Claims 4 and 15, Abdelmoneum teaches that the ball launching system may include three spinner wheels (804) and controlling the settings may include individually adjusting a speed of one or more wheels, paragraph 0117 and see Figure 8. As to Claim 5, Abdelmoneum teaches capturing, using the imaging stroke data corresponding to the user, paragraphs 0031, 0037, and 0081, noting that a user profile may be used by the system to establish appropriate parameters for a ball launched to the user. Captured stroke data may be compared to stored stroke data (profile data), paragraph 0081, noting determining whether a user returned a ball as expected. The examiner finds that the ball machine of prior art possesses the structural features of the inventive ball machine and is capable of performing in the manner as claimed, namely determining that with regard to the user returned a shot the captured data has matched stored data, denoting shot type. The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562. As to Claim 7, Abdelmoneum is applied as in Claim 5 with regard to the capture and analysis of the data and determining that the captured data matches stored data, noting that the image data received includes return ball flight data, paragraph 0081. As to Claims 8 and 20, Abdelmoneum teaches that return ball flight data may include position, velocity, and acceleration of the ball with respect to the court during flight as well as the landing point of the ball on the court, paragraphs 0016, 0018, 0032, 0047, and 0145. As to Claims 10 and 22, Abdelmoneum is applied as in Claim 1. The examiner finds that the ball machine of prior art is capable of selecting a shot type of a second ball in the sequence based on determination of a shot type returned by a user. As to Claim 12, Abdelmoneum, as modified, is applied as in Claim 1 with regard to a ball machine comprising the features capable of performing the steps as outlined. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to operate the ball machine to perform the claimed functions in order to execute the process as intended. As to Claim 16, Abdelmoneum is silent as to controller settings including adjusting tilt, roll, and yaw of the ball launching system. Weinlader teaches a ball launching system (100) which may include controlling settings (controller executing software) adjusting one or more of tilt, roll, and yaw of the ball launching system, paragraph 0045. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Abdelmoneum, as modified, with adjusting one or more of tilt, roll, and yaw, as taught by Weinlader, to provide Abdelmoneum, as modified, with an additional adjustment to yield the predictable result of adding versatility to the ball machine. As to Claim 17, Abdelmoneum is applied as in Claim 5. Further, Abdelmoneum teaches identifying the shot type returned by the user as a shot type associated with the matched stored stroke data, paragraph 0096, noting classifying the return stroke. As to Claim 19, Abdelmoneum is applied as in Claim 7. Further, Abdelmoneum teaches identifying the shot type returned by the user as a shot type associated with the matched stored ball flight data, paragraph 0096, noting classifying the return ball flight.
Claim(s) 6 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdelmoneum, in view of Weinlader, and in further view of Marty et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2013/0130845. Abdelmoneum, as modified, substantially shows the claimed limitations, as discussed above. As to Claims 6 and 18, Abdelmoneum teaches that stroke data may include movement, velocity, and position of the user, paragraph 0107, but Abdelmoneum does not disclose that the stroke data may include movement of key points of the user and the position and orientation of a racket held by the user. Marty teaches a trajectory detection and feedback system including the capture of the trajectory of key points of a user (a player’s body element) and the position and orientation of a racket (section of the racquet in contact with a ball and changing angle of racquet), paragraph 0033. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Abdelmoneum, as modified, with additional components of stroke data to include key points of the user and position and orientation of the racket, as taught by Marty, to provide Abdelmoneum, as modified, with additional stroke data components to yield the predictable result of expanding the capability of the processor to analyze player performance.
Claim(s) 11, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdelmoneum, in view of Weinlader, and in further view of Feith, U.S. Patent No. 4,269,163. Abdelmoneum, as modified, substantially shows the claimed limitations, as discussed above. As to Claims 11 and 23, Abdelmoneum teaches that parameters of the second ball may include, velocity (speed), magnitude of spin (spin), orientation of spin, height (trajectory), launch angle (trajectory angle), location (ball landing position), slice, and height trajectory (nozzle elevation), paragraphs 0016, 0035, 0037, and 0060, noting that the parameters apply to the launch of balls in the sequence. Abdelmoneum does not specify launch interval as a parameter. Feith teaches that a ball launch parameter may comprise a launch interval, Col. 3, ln. 7-10. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Abdelmoneum with the launch interval as an additional parameter as taught by Feith, to provide Abdelmoneum with at additional parameter to yield the predictable result of facilitating the process of customizing the ball launch characteristics available for selection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument that Abdelmoneum does not teach selecting a shot type to launch to a player based on a determined shot type returned by the player, the examiner maintains the position that Abdelmoneum, as modified by Weinlader, discloses the claimed invention. Abdelmoneum teaches that the ball machine analyzes a return ball hit by a player, noting the determination of a return as expected or a return not as expected. The system generates a next shot launched to the player, the shot being selected to be less challenging or more challenging as appropriate. The launched responsive ball may be adjusted for velocity and spin. Weinlader teaches that a responsive launched ball may be selected to be high or low and also notes adjustment in the timing of the responsive shot. Abdelmoneum may be modified by Weinlader to provide the full variety of shot types as discussed in the office action. The examiner notes that a volley is understood to be a shot struck before the first bounce and a drive is understood to be a ball struck after the first bounce. For a player responding to a shot, the difference apparent in receiving a volley as opposed to a drive is the timing of arrival of the shot, the volley arriving in less time. Likewise, a lob is a high shot and drive is a low shot. A drop shot is a shot that lands generally in the area of the court nearer the net. The examiner finds that the prior art references disclose the various shot types by disclosing the characteristics of the shots, albeit without using the labels suggested by the applicant.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN ELLIOTT SIMMS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-7474. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm - M-F.
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.
/JOHN E SIMMS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711 16 December 2025