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 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 1-22 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.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claims 1 and 22 are directed to “a system” (i.e. “a machine”), and claim 12 is directed to “a method” (i.e. “a process”), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to the abstract idea of “tracking and analyzing a trajectory of a pitch relative to an intended zone,” in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion) which require the following limitations:
Per claim 1:
“generate a trajectory model of the pitch based on data;
receive an input from a user indicating an intended zone for the pitch;
analyze the trajectory model to determine a plurality of metrics of the pitch relative to the intended zone, the plurality of metrics comprising a location of the pitch in the intended zone; and
generate a feedback report indicating the plurality of metrics.”
Per claim 12:
“tracking a location of a ball in a three-dimensional space throughout a trajectory of the ball;
generating a trajectory model of the pitch based on sensor data from the tracking unit;
receiving an input from a user indicating an intended zone for the pitch;
analyzing the trajectory model to determine a plurality of metrics of the pitch relative to the intended zone, the plurality of metrics comprising a location of the pitch in the intended zone;
generating a feedback report indicating the plurality of metrics; and
providing the feedback report to the user.”
Per claim 22:
“retrieve the pitch trajectory and the specified strike zone and target zone dimensions;
determine, based on the pitch trajectory, an aim point, a release point, a projected path, and a zone entry location of the pitch relative to the specified strike zone and target zones;
calculate a plurality of metrics based on the determined aim point, release point, projected path, and zone entry location, the metrics comprising at least consistency of pitch location relative to the target zones and timing of entry of the pitch into the target zones;
generate a visualization showing the pitch trajectory overlaid on the specified strike zone and target zones along with the calculated metrics; and
output the generated visualization.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the applicants claimed element of “a tracking unit comprising one or more sensors,” “a computing device operatively coupled to the tracking unit and comprising a processor and a memory,” “a database,” and “a user interface,” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed “tracking and analyzing a trajectory of a pitch relative to an intended zone,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a tracking unit comprising one or more sensors,” “a computing device operatively coupled to the tracking unit and comprising a processor and a memory,” “a database,” and “a user interface,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional data gathering computing elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are so sufficiently well-known, that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such an additional element to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “a tracking unit comprising one or more sensors,” as described in para. [0024] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following:
“[0024] The hardware includes one or more sensors integrated into a portable, lightweight tracking unit that can track the position of the ball in three-dimensional space throughout its trajectory from release by the pitcher to crossing the plate. The tracking unit employs technologies such as radar, LIDAR, high-speed cameras, computer vision software, and IMUs to accurately capture xyz position data of the ball at high frequency through the entire trajectory.” Furthermore, the Applicant’s claimed “a tracking unit comprising one or more sensors,” is reasonably understood to be well-known and in common use, since the element is commercially available at www.trackman.com as a “B1 Practice unit,” and is referenced as such in paras. [0008] and [0086]-[0088]. As such, this element is reasonably interpreted as a commercially available product that is sufficiently well-known.
Also, the Applicant’s claimed “a computing device operatively coupled to the tracking unit and comprising a processor and a memory,” is not sufficiently described in the written description of the specification as originally filed and is reasonably understood to be any form of a computer having generic, routine and conventional components. As such, this element is reasonably interpreted as a generic computer which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard off-the-shelf equipment.
Likewise, the Applicant’s claimed “a database,” as described in para. [0043] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following:
“[0043] The data storage module 108 provides persistent storage of motion data, biomechanical parameters, user models, and other system data. It is implemented with database technologies like SQL, NoSQL, and blob storage. The data storage module 108 interfaces with all system components to store their inputs and outputs.” As such, the Applicant’s “a database,” is reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional data computing element.
Finally, the Applicant’s claimed “a user interface,” as described in para. [0044] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following:
“[0044] The user interface 110 is a software component that provides interaction with users of the system. It contains graphical displays, visualizations, and controls to configure sessions, view data, and receive assessments.” As such, the Applicant’s “a user interface,” is also reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional data computing element.
Thus, the Applicant’s own specification discloses ubiquitous standard equipment within modern computing and does not provide anything significantly more. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-11 and 13-21 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-11 and 13-21 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1 or 12. Therefore, claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-14 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teeger, et al., (hereinafter referred to as “Teeger,” US 2021/0093941) in view of Sondergaard, et al., (hereinafter referred to as “Sondergaard,” US 2022/0035000).
Regarding claim 1, and substantially similar limitations in claims 12 and 22, Teeger discloses a tracking unit (102) comprising one or more sensors configured to track a location of a ball throughout a trajectory of the ball; and a computing device (104) operatively coupled to the tracking unit and comprising a processor and a memory (see para. [0031] FIG. 1 illustrates example components of tracking device 100 in accordance with some embodiments presented herein. Tracking device 100 may include sensors 110, visual indicators 120, microphone 130, network connectivity 140, memory or storage 150, processor 160, and power source 170;
see para. [0039]: In some embodiments, sensors 110 may include other optical or acoustic instruments for obtaining one or more measurements about a moving object. For instance, the sensors 110 may include cameras, infrared sensors, and/or depth sensors in addition to or instead of lasers),
the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: generate a trajectory model of the pitch based on sensor data from the tracking unit (see para. [0050] Memory or storage 150 may store the instructions executed by processor 160. Memory or storage 150 may also store configuration information for different users including different strike zones that users custom-define using the supported gestures. Memory or storage 150 may also store pitch plans and tracked position information for different detected pitches and/or moving objects. The position information may include positional coordinates that are mapped against a selected strike zone. From the position information, additional information may be derived for each pitch, including whether the pitch was a ball or strike and/or the position of the pitch within or outside the strike zone quadrants. Other information including the pitch velocity, type of pitch, etc. may be stored and catalogued for different pitchers and/or batters in memory or storage 150);
receive an input from a user indicating an intended zone for the pitch (see para. [0007]: FIG. 4 illustrates an example set of gestures for configuring the tracking device with a user-defined strike zone in accordance with some embodiments presented herein;
see para. [0008]: FIG. 5 illustrates an example of using the same gesture to configure a user-defined strike zone in accordance with some embodiments presented herein;
see para. [0010]: FIG. 7 illustrates an example of using gestures to select between different configured strike zones in accordance with some embodiments presented herein;
see para. [0026]: To differentiate from other devices that may detect or track positioning of a moving object, and to increase the accuracy of the tracking device relative to other devices, the systems and methods described herein include gesture configuration of the tracking device. The gestures include human interactions with the set of sensors prior to using the device for pitch detection. In some embodiments, the gestures can be used to configure the starting and ending height of the strike zone in order to adjust the strike zone for batters of different heights, thereby allowing the tracking device to adapt to different strike zones as would be experienced by a pitcher in actual gameplay rather than operate with a single static strike zone.
analyze the trajectory model to determine a plurality of metrics of the pitch relative to the intended zone, the plurality of metrics comprising a location of the pitch in the intended zone; and generate a feedback report indicating the plurality of metrics.
(see para. [0119]: Tracking device 100 may implement methods that create training games. For instance, in addition to tracking the location of a pitch, tracking device 100 may first notify a pitcher on where to locate the pitch, and may then determine if the pitcher successfully executed the pitch by hitting the identified pitch location;
see para. [0120]: In some embodiments, tracking device 100 may be programmed with a pitch plan. For instance, a connected user device may provide the pitch plan to tracking device 100 via a set of messages. The pitch plan may include a sequence of pitches for hitting different locations in one or more user-defined strike zones, and/or may further include instructions for throwing different types of pitches (e.g., fastball, breaking ball, slider, changeup, etc.) at the different locations. Tracking device 100 may then track the accuracy of the pitcher in replicating pitches from the pitch plan, and may produce individual pitch results and/or a summarized result for the pitch plan).
Teeger does not explicitly teach configured to track a location of a ball in a three-dimensional space. However, Sondergaard discloses a similar tracking unit comprising one or more sensors and a computing device operatively coupled to the tracking unit and comprising a processor and a memory configured to track a location of a ball in a three-dimensional space (see para. [0036] The system consists of multiple sensors, each sensor feeding raw data to a tracking unit, which in turn communicates with a central processing arrangement (“CP”). The sensors serve to capture data of the moving objects of interest. The sensors may be a pulse, Doppler, CW, FMCW or MFCW radar, a visible or infrared camera, a lidar, an inertial measurement unit, etc., or any combination thereof.
see para. [0039]: The tracking units, as defined here, serve to detect in the raw sensor data the moving objects of interest, and, where possible, to piece together successive detections of the same moving object into “tracks”. A track is therefore one or more detections of a moving object at successive times.
see para. [0042]: Each one of multiple sensors measures objects in a coordinate system local to the given sensor. The sensors may measure not only from different perspectives but in different spaces. For instance, a camera sensor may measure two-dimensional pixel locations of an object in a series of images, while a radar sensor may measure in a 4-dimensional space comprising a three-dimensional position as well as a radial velocity of the object)
see para. [0078]: FIG. 9 shows a system 900 comprising a radar 902 and two cameras 904, 906 for tracking object trajectories such as baseball pitches and/or other baseball trajectories. The first camera 904 has a wide aperture and may be referred to as the wide camera, while the second camera 906 has a narrow aperture and may be referred to as the narrow camera. The radar 902 and two cameras 904, 906 may, in this embodiment, be mounted onto a same structure, such as a tracking unit, and oriented to have overlapping fields of view (FOVs), i.e., with the main beam of the radar antenna covering a same FOV as the cameras 904, 906 or a portion of the FOV's of the cameras 904, 906).
Per claim 22, Teeger discloses a user interface (see para. [0117]: In some embodiments, results 1720 may be presented in a graphical user interface) and a database storing the specified strike zone and target zone dimensions (see para. [0050]: Memory or storage 150 may store the instructions executed by processor 160. Memory or storage 150 may also store configuration information for different users including different strike zones that users custom-define using the supported gestures. Memory or storage 150 may also store pitch plans and tracked position information for different detected pitches and/or moving objects. The position information may include positional coordinates that are mapped against a selected strike zone. From the position information, additional information may be derived for each pitch, including whether the pitch was a ball or strike and/or the position of the pitch within or outside the strike zone quadrants. Other information including the pitch velocity, type of pitch, etc. may be stored and catalogued for different pitchers and/or batters in memory or storage 150).
Sondergaard is analogous to Teeger, as both are drawn to the art of tracking moving objects. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the system as taught by Teeger, to include configuring to track a location of a ball in a three-dimensional space, as taught by Sondergaard, since the modification would provide a trainee a greater variety of ways to interpret the data (see para. [0082]: The track may be any mathematical, graphical or logical representation of the path of the object based on the raw data and may be represented in various ways and in various spaces.
Regarding claim 2, and substantially similar limitations in claim 13, Teeger discloses wherein the feedback report comprises a visualization of the trajectory model of the pitch overlaid on a representation of the intended zone (see FIG. 9).
Regarding claim 3, and substantially similar limitations in claim 14, Teeger discloses wherein the computing device is a portable computing device (see para. [0075]: Each of first strike zone 710, second strike zone 720, and third strike zone 730 may be configured on tracking device 100 via an application that is running on a user device (e.g., a smartphone), and may be associated with a different sensor using the application).
Regarding claim 6, and substantially similar limitations in claim 17, Teeger does not explicitly teach wherein the tracking unit comprises a radar unit. However, Sondergaard discloses wherein the tracking unit comprises a radar unit (see para. [0032]: FIG. 9 shows a system comprising a radar and two cameras for tracking object trajectories such as baseball pitches and/or other baseball trajectories.
Sondergaard is analogous to Teeger, as both are drawn to the art of tracking moving objects. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the system as taught by Teeger, to include wherein the tracking unit comprises a radar unit, as taught by Sondergaard, since the modification would provide accurate measurements of range and range rate (see para. [0002]).
Regarding claim 7, and substantially similar limitations in claim 18, Teeger discloses wherein the plurality of metrics further comprises a consistency metric (see para. [0120]: In some embodiments, tracking device 100 may be programmed with a pitch plan. For instance, a connected user device may provide the pitch plan to tracking device 100 via a set of messages. The pitch plan may include a sequence of pitches for hitting different locations in one or more user-defined strike zones, and/or may further include instructions for throwing different types of pitches (e.g., fastball, breaking ball, slider, changeup, etc.) at the different locations. Tracking device 100 may then track the accuracy of the pitcher in replicating pitches from the pitch plan, and may produce individual pitch results and/or a summarized result for the pitch plan).
Regarding claim 8, and substantially similar limitations in claim 19, Teeger discloses wherein the computing device is further configured to determine the intended zone based on a user profile (see para. [0050]: Memory or storage 150 may also store configuration information for different users including different strike zones that users custom-define using the supported gestures).
Regarding claim 9, and substantially similar limitations in claim 20, Teeger discloses wherein the computing device is further configured to determine the intended zone based on a pitch type input received from the user (see para. [0120]: In some embodiments, tracking device 100 may be programmed with a pitch plan. For instance, a connected user device may provide the pitch plan to tracking device 100 via a set of messages. The pitch plan may include a sequence of pitches for hitting different locations in one or more user-defined strike zones, and/or may further include instructions for throwing different types of pitches (e.g., fastball, breaking ball, slider, changeup, etc.) at the different locations. Tracking device 100 may then track the accuracy of the pitcher in replicating pitches from the pitch plan, and may produce individual pitch results and/or a summarized result for the pitch plan).
Regarding claim 10, and substantially similar limitations in claim 21, Teeger discloses wherein the computing device is further configured to aggregate the sensor data from the tracking unit with data from a plurality of additional tracking units to generate a pitch database (see para. [0109]: In some embodiments, tracking device 100 may improve training, practice, and/or gameplay by using network connectivity 140 to integrate with other third-party devices. In particular, tracking device 100 may incorporate input from one or more third-party devices with the results produced by tracking device 100 from the verified and validated output of sensors 110;
see para. [0110]: FIG. 16 illustrates an example of incorporating input from third-party device 1610 or user 1615 with output of tracking device 100 in accordance with some embodiments presented herein. A network connection may be established (at 1) between third-party device 1610 of user 1615 and tracking device 100).
Regarding claim 11, Teeger discloses further comprising an output device configured to provide the feedback report to the user (see para. [0128]: Output component 1950 may include a mechanism that outputs information to the operator, such as a display, a speaker, one or more light emitting diodes (“LEDs”), etc.).
Claims 4-5 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teeger and Sondergaard, in view of Adams (US 2010/0041498).
Regarding claim 4, and substantially similar limitations in claim 15, Teeger and Sondergaard donot explicitly teach a projector configured to project the intended zone onto a target. However, Adams discloses a projector configured to project the intended zone onto a target (see para. [0047]: Referring generally to FIGS. 3-6, a screen 44 is positioned at second location 38, which receives and displays a projection 46. Screen 44 may be a collapsible sheet made of durable cloth or other similar material. When system 20 is not in use, screen 44 may be collapsed and stored for later use. Referring now to FIG. 6, projection 46 may include an animated baseball batter 48 with an animated baseball bat 50 and a strike zone 40. Projection 46 may be a rear projection, projected from a projector 60 onto the rear of screen 44 or projection 46 may be a frontal projection projected onto the front of screen 44).
Adams is analogous to Teeger and Sondergaard, as both are drawn to the art of tracking moving objects. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the system as taught by Teeger and Sondergaard, to include a projector configured to project the intended zone onto a target, as taught by Adams, since the modification would overcome current training systems that lack elements of interactivity and competition (see para. [0006]).
Regarding claim 5, and substantially similar limitations in claim 16, Teeger and Sondergaard donot explicitly teach a camera configured to capture an image of the target, wherein the computing device is further configured to calibrate the intended zone based on the image of the target. However, Adams discloses a camera configured to capture an image of the target, wherein the computing device is further configured to calibrate the intended zone based on the image of the target (see para. [0026]: Referring to FIG. 1, system 20 includes data capture devices 24 for capturing data relating to a user 22 pitching a baseball. Data capture devices 24 may include high-speed video cameras, radar guns, and/or motion markers. Captured pitching data is transferred to data processor 26, which may be a personal computer, personal digital assistant (PDA), or any other processing device. The pitching data is processed and is converted into animation, graphical data and numerical output data relating to both user's 22 body mechanics during a pitching motion as well as the characteristics of the baseball in flight;
see para. [0051]: System 20 may be controlled remotely by an operator who activates the system, calibrates the data capture devices, inputs data such as user information and pitch template, initiates data capture devices during the session or prior to each pitch, controls system output, and maintains proper system operation and adjusting system operation accordingly).
Adams is analogous to Teeger and Sondergaard, as both are drawn to the art of tracking moving objects. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the system as taught by Teeger and Sondergaard, to include a camera configured to capture an image of the target, wherein the computing device is further configured to calibrate the intended zone based on the image of the target, as taught by Adams, since the modification would overcome current training systems that lack elements of interactivity and competition (see para. [0006]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P. BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313) 446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (571) 270-7625. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715