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: There is already a “wherein” on line 9 which means the “wherein” for lines 10 ,12, and 14 are unnecessary. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-10, 12, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "a strike intensity" in line 4. However, there was disclosure of “a strike intensity” previously before in Claim 1. It is not clear if these are the same element or distinct elements. For clarity, when multiple terms have the same name but are intended to be distinct elements, clearly distinct labels, such as "first element" and "second element" should be used to make the distinct nature clear. Conversely, if the terms are to the same element, a consistent name should be used with “said” or “the” when referring back.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "a score " in lines 3 and 4. However, there were two mentions of disclosure of “a score” previously before in Claim 1. It is not clear if these are the same element or distinct elements. For clarity, when multiple terms have the same name but are intended to be distinct elements, clearly distinct labels, such as "first element" and "second element" should be used to make the distinct nature clear. Conversely, if the terms are to the same element, a consistent name should be used with “said” or “the” when referring back.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "a strike intensity value" in line 4. However, there were two mentions of disclosure of “a strike intensity value” previously before in Claim 3. It is not clear if these are the same element or distinct elements. For clarity, when multiple terms have the same name but are intended to be distinct elements, clearly distinct labels, such as "first element" and "second element" should be used to make the distinct nature clear. Conversely, if the terms are to the same element, a consistent name should be used with “said” or “the” when referring back.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "a current strike intensity" in line 4. However, there was disclosure of “a current strike intensity” previously before in Claim 3. It is not clear if these are the same element or distinct elements. For clarity, when multiple terms have the same name but are intended to be distinct elements, clearly distinct labels, such as "first element" and "second element" should be used to make the distinct nature clear. Conversely, if the terms are to the same element, a consistent name should be used with “said” or “the” when referring back.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "a strike point" in line 6. However, there was disclosure of “a strike point” previously before in Claim 1. It is not clear if these are the same element or distinct elements. For clarity, when multiple terms have the same name but are intended to be distinct elements, clearly distinct labels, such as "first element" and "second element" should be used to make the distinct nature clear. Conversely, if the terms are to the same element, a consistent name should be used with “said” or “the” when referring back.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "a score " in line 10. However, there were two mentions of disclosure of “a score” previously before in Claim 1. It is not clear if these are the same element or distinct elements. For clarity, when multiple terms have the same name but are intended to be distinct elements, clearly distinct labels, such as "first element" and "second element" should be used to make the distinct nature clear. Conversely, if the terms are to the same element, a consistent name should be used with “said” or “the” when referring back.
Claim 7 recites the terms "reasonable" and “excessively”. Such terms are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term "reasonable" and “excessively” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 8 recites the term "reasonable". Such a term is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "reasonable" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "a score " in line 5. However, there were two mentions of disclosure of “a score” previously before in Claim 1. It is not clear if these are the same element or distinct elements. For clarity, when multiple terms have the same name but are intended to be distinct elements, clearly distinct labels, such as "first element" and "second element" should be used to make the distinct nature clear. Conversely, if the terms are to the same element, a consistent name should be used with “said” or “the” when referring back.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "a score " in line 7. However, there were two mentions of disclosure of “a score” previously before in Claim 1. It is not clear if these are the same element or distinct elements. For clarity, when multiple terms have the same name but are intended to be distinct elements, clearly distinct labels, such as "first element" and "second element" should be used to make the distinct nature clear. Conversely, if the terms are to the same element, a consistent name should be used with “said” or “the” when referring back.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the received strike intensity value" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. From what the Examiner can discern, it appears as if it is actually supposed to be “the collected strike intensity value” as it appears as if it supposed to reference line 4 of Claim 15. However, the Examiner is not positive that this is the case but will assume that that is supposed to be the proper interpretation.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "a score " in line 6. However, there were two mentions of disclosure of “a score” previously before in Claim 1. It is not clear if these are the same element or distinct elements. For clarity, when multiple terms have the same name but are intended to be distinct elements, clearly distinct labels, such as "first element" and "second element" should be used to make the distinct nature clear. Conversely, if the terms are to the same element, a consistent name should be used with “said” or “the” when referring back.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "a strike intensity value" in line 7. However, there were two mentions of disclosure of “a strike intensity value” previously before in Claim 15. It is not clear if these are the same element or distinct elements. For clarity, when multiple terms have the same name but are intended to be distinct elements, clearly distinct labels, such as "first element" and "second element" should be used to make the distinct nature clear. Conversely, if the terms are to the same element, a consistent name should be used with “said” or “the” when referring back.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "a strike point score" in line 2 and 6. However, there was disclosure of “a strike point” previously before in Claim 15. It is not clear if these are the same element or distinct elements. For clarity, when multiple terms have the same name but are intended to be distinct elements, clearly distinct labels, such as "first element" and "second element" should be used to make the distinct nature clear. Conversely, if the terms are to the same element, a consistent name should be used with “said” or “the” when referring back.
All dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claim(s) from which they depend and are similarly rejected for the same reason.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 18 is a computer-storage medium claim that is dependent on Claims 15, which is directed towards a method claim, in which Claim 15 is dependent upon Claim 1, a system claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (What is the statutory category?):
Claims 1-18 are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (ie: process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A; Prong I (Does the claim recite an abstract idea?):
Claim 1 recites:
An electronic refereeing system for boxing, the electronic refereeing system comprising,
a sensing module,
a monitoring module,
a comprehensive scoring module,
a remote transmission module, and
a main control system, wherein the main control system is connected to the comprehensive scoring module through the remote transmission module, and the comprehensive scoring module is connected to the sensing module and the monitoring module, wherein
wherein the sensing module is configured to perform scoring according to a strike intensity;
wherein the monitoring module is configured to perform scoring according to a strike point; and
wherein the comprehensive scoring module is configured to perform comprehensive calculation on a score of the sensing module and a score of the monitoring module in a weight calculation manner.
[the Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined elements recite a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations) as well reciting mental process because it can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).]
To further elaborate on the Examiner’s analysis, the claimed invention can be
interpreted as being directed towards mental processes because it can be carried out by hand without aid of a computer or computer components. For example:
“perform scoring according to a strike intensity” can be interpreted as an individual observing a boxer striking and objected and mentally scoring the boxer based how strongly the boxer strikes a certain target location; “perform scoring according to a strike point” can be interpreted as an individual mentally scoring the boxer based on how accurate the boxer is in striking the certain location; “perform comprehensive calculation on a score of the sensing module and a score of the monitoring module in a weight calculation manner” can be interpreted as an individual mentally determining a comprehensive score based on how strongly and accurate a boxer strike a certain target location.
Step 2A; Prong II (Does the claim recite a practical application?):
The Examiner submits that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims 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 instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or use a computer as tool to perform the abstract idea.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons. The claim elements of claim 1 above that are not underlined constitute additional limitations.
The Examiner submits that the following additional limitation merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: sensing module, monitoring module, comprehensive scoring module, remote transmission module, and a main control system.
The Examiner submits that the following additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: “collecting a strike intensity value in real time” and “outputting a comprehensive score with reference to weights and based on a score of the strike intensity value and the strike point score” because these elements are analogous to limitations that amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g).
The Examiner finds that there are concepts regarding the application that simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality. For example:
Merchant-Borne et al., US 10646154, discloses that sensors are well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (Col 15, lines 63-66).
The above helps to suggest that the claimed components are no more than generic well-known components.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology; there is no additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception; the additional elements merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Step 2B (Are there additional elements that are “something more” than an abstract idea?):
Dependent Claims 2-18 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because these are computer-readable medium claims that are broad enough to cover impermissible transitory media. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuitjen, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007)(transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter). A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C.§101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim.
Best Applicable Prior Art
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Merrell et al., US 20240424373 is interpreted as disclosing: An electronic refereeing system for boxing, the electronic refereeing system comprising: a main control configured to perform scoring according to a strike intensity; perform scoring according to a strike point.
While Merrell is interpreted as disclosing performing scoring according to a strike intensity; and performing scoring according to a strike point, Merrell is interpreted as failing to disclose performing scoring according to a strike intensity via sensing modules and performing scoring according to a strike point via monitoring module; Furthermore, while Merrell is interpreted as disclosing a main control, the prior art is interpreted as failing to disclose: a sensing module, a monitoring module, a comprehensive scoring module, a remote transmission module, wherein the main control system is connected to the comprehensive scoring module through the remote transmission module, and the comprehensive scoring module is connected to the sensing module and the monitoring module; and wherein the comprehensive scoring module is configured to perform comprehensive calculation on a score of the sensing module and a score of the monitoring module in a weight calculation manner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571) 270-1344. 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.
/JEFFREY K WONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715