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
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/22/24, 10/3/24, 10/29/25 was acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Applicant's claim for domestic priority benefit of Provisional Application no 63/468258, filed 5/22/23, is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant is recommended to amend the phrase "displaying, via the user interface" to " displaying, via the user interface,". Appropriate correction is required.
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.
In the instant application, claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are drawn to at lea*st one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A:
However, claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For instance, regarding independent claim(s) 1, 10, 20,
Prong 1 analysis:
The limitations of “receiving sensor data of a throw from the electronics package of the flying disc via the wireless connection, wherein the sensor data is collected by the at least one sensor of the flying disc; identifying a release point of the flying disc by analyzing the sensor data; calculating, using sensor data collected over a predetermined period after the release point, at least one launch parameter of the throw; and displaying, via a user interface on a display of the computing device, the at least one launch parameter of the throw”, are considered to fall within the mental processes grouping. The recited limitations, as drafted, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-9, 11-19 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) 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 are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed. Thus, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
Prong 2 analysis:
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the additional elements “a flying disc comprising an electronics package mounted to the flying disc, the electronics package comprising at least one processor, at least one memory, at least one sensor, and a communications system, wherein the telemetry enabled flying disc system is configured to store and execute instructions stored in the at least one memory, establishing a wireless connection between an electronics package of the flying disc and a computing device, the electronics package including at least one sensor and a communications system”, are generically recited computer elements that do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation 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. Furthermore, the above-identified generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer. The claimed elements are recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering and data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Each of the additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, in view of Berkheimer, the recited additional elements are considered as conventional activity. For instance, Penttila (2017/0007881) and Hoang (2023/0037021) teach the recited additional elements (Penttila, Fig 5-10, ¶¶0019-0033; Hoang, Fig 20A, ¶¶0072-0080).
In addition, with regards to the present claims, the courts have recognized the computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
For instance, regarding claims 1-20, each claim describes physical or software elements that provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea, which is similar to the conventional activity or as insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting information, based on types of information, for collection, analysis and display in EPG, gathering, receiving and transmitting data in Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs., buySAFE, and performing repetitive calculation in Flook, Bancorp.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 is/are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9-12, 14, 16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penttila (2017/0007881) in view of Bose et al. (2017/0004358).
Re Claim 1,
Penttila discloses a method for processing telemetry data of a flying disc, the method comprising:
establishing a wireless connection between an electronics package of the flying disc and a computing device, the electronics package including at least one sensor and a communications system (Fig 5-10; ¶¶0021-0029; an electronic circuit, an accelerometer and a wireless communication unit are mounted on the disc);
receiving sensor data of a throw from the electronics package of the flying disc via the wireless connection, wherein the sensor data is collected by the at least one sensor of the flying disc (Fig 5-10, ¶¶0030-0033; the microprocessor retrieves the data and transmits the data via the wireless interface);
identifying a release point of the flying disc by analyzing the sensor data (¶¶0030-0031; the accelerometer equipped on the flying disc is used to determine movement and the attitude or tilt of the flying disc. When the disc is still and level, x and y coordinates of the acceleration data are 0, when the disc moves, the numbers start to change);
calculating, using sensor data collected over a predetermined period after the release point, at least one launch parameter of the throw (Fig 5-10, ¶¶0031-0032; when the disc moves, the electronic circuit calculates the speed, acceleration, and distance, wherein the sensor data is used to determine the flight characteristics of the disc, i.e., at least one launch parameter).
Penttila is silent on displaying, via a user interface on a display of the computing device, the at least one launch parameter of the throw.
However, Bose teaches displaying, via a user interface on a display of the computing device, the at least one launch parameter of the throw (Fig 27-28, ¶¶0023, 0243). Bose further teaches such a configuration provides feedback on a user’s device (¶¶0006-0007). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Bose into the flying disc system of Penttila in order to provide feedback on a user’s device.
Re Claims 2, 11,
Penttila discloses all limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose simulating a flight path of the flying disc based on the at least one launch parameter; wherein displaying, via the display of the computing device, the at least one launch parameter of the throw, further comprises displaying the flight path. However, Bose teaches simulating a flight path of the flying disc based on the at least one launch parameter; wherein displaying, via the display of the computing device, the at least one launch parameter of the throw, further comprises displaying the flight path (Fig 27-28, ¶¶0023, 0243). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claims 4, 12
Penttila discloses all limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose displaying a pre-launch path. However, Bose teaches displaying a pre-launch path (Fig 24-26, ¶¶0071-0073). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claims 6, 14,
Penttila discloses all limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the flight path is displayed in a two-dimensional or a three-dimensional view. However, Bose teaches the flight path is displayed in a two-dimensional or a three-dimensional view (Fig 27-28, ¶¶0023, 0243). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claims 7, 16,
Penttila discloses the release point is determined by identifying a rotation of the flying disc by analyzing the sensor data (¶¶0030-0031).
Re Claims 9, 18,
Penttila discloses the at least one sensor is one of an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a magnetometer, a barometer, a camera, a timer, a radar device, or a microphone (¶¶0021-0029).
Re Claim 10,
Claim is substantially similar to claim 1. See claim 1 for rejection and motivation.
Re Claim 20,
Claim is substantially similar to claim 1 and further adds displaying a simulated flight path (Bose, Fig 27-28, ¶¶0023, 0243). See claim 1 for rejection and motivation.
Claim(s) 3, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penttila (2017/0007881) in view of Bose et al. (2017/0004358), further in view of Gallery et al. (2019/0226808).
Re Claims 3, 15,
Penttila as modified by Bose discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on displaying, via the user interface, an option to adjust at least one launch parameter; and generating a modified flight path based upon the adjusted launch parameter. However, Gallery teaches displaying, via the user interface, an option to adjust at least one launch parameter; and generating a modified flight path based upon the adjusted launch parameter (¶¶0048, 0055). Gallery further teaches such a configuration allows the user to gain maximal proficiency (¶0003). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Gallery into the flying disc system of Penttila as modified by Bose in order to allow the user to gain maximal proficiency.
Claim(s) 5, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penttila (2017/0007881) in view of Bose et al. (2017/0004358), further in view of Dibenedetto et al. (2015/0379351).
Re Claims 5, 13,
Penttila as modified by Bose discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on an animation depicting the flight path. However, Dibenedetto teaches an animation depicting the flight path (Fig 17, ¶0141). Dibenedetto further teaches such a configuration improves future performances (¶0006). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the feedback taught by Dibenedetto into the flying disc system of Penttila as modified by Bose in order to improve the user’s future performances.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penttila (2017/0007881) in view of Bose et al. (2017/0004358), further in view of Mucignat et al. (2010/0235667).
Re Claim 19,
Penttila as modified by Bose discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on determining the at least one sensor is idle for a predetermined amount of time and placing the electronics package into a low power mode. However, Mucignat teaches determining the at least one sensor is idle for a predetermined amount of time and placing the electronics package into a low power mode (Fig 2-3A, ¶¶0039-0041). Mucignat further teaches such a configuration conserves the power available to the user device (¶0002). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Mucignat into the flying disc system of Penttila as modified by Bose in order to conserve the power available to the user device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TAHAI YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1777. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 7am- 3pm PST.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached on 571-272-4430. 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.uspto.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.
/JASON T YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715