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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite a series of mental steps.
Under Step 2A, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The claims are directed to the abstract ideas of mental steps.
The instant application receives inputted motion data corresponding to a swing motion. From there the system evaluates the data to determine speed metrics of the captured data. The data is then categorized and compared against other individuals in the same category. Afterwards a performance of each metric is outputted. This exemplifies the holding of Electric Power Group wherein data is collected, analyzed, and a result is outputted. Here, data is collected from sensors, and then the data is analyzed to determine categories and ranking, and then information is outputted to the user. Additional claim limitations, also fit within the scope of the holding of Electric Power Grid. For example, categorizing based on body mass, comparing metrics, identifying types of sensor data, showing where one can improve, determining an overall body metric, etc.. For these reasons, the claims are considered an abstract idea.
The second prong of Step 2A, ask whether the claims recite additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Here, no such practical application exists. There is no improvement made to computer technology since the claims discuss identifying and categorizing speed metrics. This is not a longstanding problem in computer technology. Additionally, there is no practical application as there is no particular machine that is used to implement the claim language, but instead and as will be discussed below only generic computers are used to perform the invention. Also, there is no transformation of the machine used in the application into a different state or thing. . Lastly, the claims do not attempt to apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond simply using the claimed machine.
Step 2B asks whether a claimed invention which fails Step 2A contains an inventive concepts, i.e. significantly more. Here the invention does not recite significantly more as the claim language only recites only sensory equipment, a video camera, a computer, and a server. However, Examiner takes Official Notice that all of said hardware mentioned is well known, understood and routine in the art. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea that lacks significantly more and thus is not patent eligible. Therefore, the abstract idea lacks significantly more to make the claims eligible patent subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-7, 10, 13-15, 17-20, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (U.S. PGPUB 2018/0021653).
Re claims 1, 18, 19, and 23: Thornbrue discloses a method of analyzing an athletic motion by an individual, the method being executed by a motion monitoring system comprising at least one computer and one or more sensors for sensing movement of the individual, the method comprising:
receiving, by the at least one computer, sensor data captured from the one or more sensors during execution of the athletic motion by the individual (see paragraph [0050]: “Data from sensor 104 is obtained in step 110”);
processing, by the at least one computer, the sensor data to automatically generate at least one speed metric for the individual based on the sensor data (see paragraph [0053]: “For example, each sample may include data on any or all of the bat's position, orientation, velocity, angular velocity, acceleration, or angular acceleration. In one or more embodiments a sample may include data for multiple locations on the bat”);
categorizing, by the at least one computer, the individual into a category of a plurality of possible categories based on a physical attribute of the individual (see Fig. 10, see paragraph [0061]: “We can infer how rotationally efficient a baseball swing is by the percentage of speed in the “body” half of the swing relative to the “arm” half. An ideal swing tempo range is learned from empirical data collected from elite-level batters.” Here various styles of swinging is defined by the system including “arm-dominant” hitters);
generating, by the at least one computer, for each speed metric of the at least one speed metric, an indication of relative performance of the speed metric in relation to only other individuals who also belong to the category of the individual (see Fig. 10: here the user’s speed metric is mapped and compared against other individuals who are also arm-dominant); and
outputting, by the at least one computer, the indication of relative performance for each speed metric (see Fig. 10).
Re claim 2: Thornbrue discloses with respect to the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of possible categories are defined based on body mass, such that for each speed metric of the individual, the relative performance of the speed metric is generated in relation to only other individuals who have comparable body mass to the individual (see Fig. 10 and paragraph [0061]: the system defines categories are based on body favored movements).
Re claim 4: Thornbrue discloses with respect to the method of claim 1, further comprising:
maintaining, by the at least one computer, a database having, for each category of the possible categories, speed metrics for individuals belonging to the category (Fig. 10, object 1021: the system maintains data in a database for various categorizations of club and bat swings, wherein individuals with similar swings are categorized together);
accessing, by the at least one computer, the speed metrics for individuals belonging to the category of the individual (see Fig. 10, object 1021: speed metrics of individuals are accessed in order to be visualized);
wherein the at least one computer generates, for each speed metric of the individual, the indication of relative performance of the speed metric by comparing the speed metric of the individual to the speed metrics of only the individuals belonging to the category of the individual (see Fig. 10, object 1021: the system indicates through a visual displays individual metrics of only users who share similar swing styles).
Re claim 5: Thornbrue discloses with respect to the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one speed metric comprises a plurality of speed metrics including pelvis speed, torso speed, arm speed, hand speed and exit velocity (see paragraph [0020] and Fig. 10: impact speed is equivalent to exit velocity).
Re claim 6: Thornbrue discloses with respect to the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one speed metric comprises a plurality of speed metrics, and the method further comprises:
determining, by the at least one computer, a select speed metric of the plurality of speed metrics to be targeted by the individual for improvement (see Fig.9, object 905: the system gives the user a grade on a particular speed metric); and
conveying, by the at least one computer, the select speed metric for improvement (see Fig. 9, object 905: the system conveys that the selected speed metric needs improvement).
Re claim 7: Thornbrue discloses with respect to the method of claim 6, further comprising:
determining, by the at least one computer, at least one exercise for improving the select speed metric (see paragraph [0061]: “Deviation from the ideal tempo range, either high or low, is used to provide feedback and prescribe drills to the batter in order to improve performance.”); and conveying, by the at least one computer, the at least one exercise for the individual to practice (see paragraph [0061]).
Re claim 10: Thornbrue discloses with respect to the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one speed metric comprises a plurality of body speed metrics, and the method further comprises:
determining, by the at least one computer, an overall body speed metric based on a combination of the plurality of body speed metrics (see paragraph [0110]); and
conveying, by the at least one computer, the overall body speed metric. (see paragraph [0110]).
Re claim 13: Thornbrue discloses with respect to the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors each comprise an inertial sensor, a local processor, a local data buffer, and a transceiver, the sensor data being initially buffered in the local data buffer, whereby upon recognition that the athletic motion has occurred, the local processor extracts from the local data buffer sensor data in a predetermined time window before and after a moment in which the athletic motion occurred and only the sensor data that is extracted is transmitted to a transceiver of the at least one computer (see paragraphs [0020, 0050]: Swing data includes a point before the swing, without motion, and continuous motion of the bat through the swing, until a point where the swing stops. This data is stored in the memory, i.e. local buffer, of the sensor before the information is transmitted).
Re claim 14: Thornbrue discloses with respect to the method of claim 13, wherein the one or more sensors comprise a plurality of sensors networked together so that sensor data can be transmitted from one or more of the sensors to the local data buffer existing in another one of the sensors and an aggregate of the sensor data from the sensors is transmitted from that local data buffer to the transceiver of the at least one computer (see Fig. 1, objects 104-017: data from three sensors located within the watch are transmitted to the memory, i.e. buffer, portion of the watch which is then transmitted to a remote communication device).
Re claim 15: Thornbrue discloses with respect to the method of claim 1, wherein the athletic motion pertains to swinging a baseball bat to strike a baseball, and the one or more sensors comprise at least one of a handset sensor, a wrist sensor, and a bat mounted sensor for capturing an impact between the baseball bat with the baseball (see paragraph [0055, 0062]: baseball bat sensor; see paragraph [0051, 0065]).
Re claim 17: Thornbrue discloses with respect to the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors comprise a video camera for capturing video showing the movement of the individual (see paragraph [0003, 0048]: a video camera).
Re claim 20: Thornbrue discloses with respect to the motion monitoring system of claim 19, wherein the at least one computer comprises any one or more of a participant device, a server and an observer device (see paragraph [0051, 0066]: server and computer).
Re claim 22: Thornbrue discloses with respect to the motion monitoring system of claim 19, wherein the athletic motion pertains to swinging a baseball bat to strike a baseball (see paragraph [0055]), the at least one speed metric comprises one or more of pelvis speed, torso speed, arm speed, hand speed, and exit velocity (see paragraph [0055, 0062]: torso speed, shoulders speed), and the one or more sensors comprise at least one of a handset sensor, a wrist sensor, and a bat mounted sensor for capturing an impact between the baseball bat with the baseball (see paragraph [0055]).
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.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thornbrue in view of Shibuya (U.S. PGPUB 2018/0221711).
Re claim 9: Thornbrue fails to disclose with respect to the method of claim 1, wherein the athletic motion is a first athletic motion and the method further comprises:
repeating, by the at least one computer, the receiving, the processing, the generating and the outputting for a second athletic motion by the individual;
determining, by the at least one computer, an indication of improvement of the second athletic motion compared to the first athletic motion; and
conveying, by the at least one computer, the indication of improvement. However, Shibuya teaches generating output for each swing of a user and displaying to the user a series of swings, including a first, and second swing on a graph with a target region whereby a target region for a swing is dictated on the graph (see Fig. 10). Furthermore, the target region indicates to the user an area for improvement and how the user can make said improvements, including reaching the proper rhythm and tempo. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify the system of Thornbrue with the target region depiction feature of Shibuya for the purpose of aiding users in reaching their peak performance.
Claim(s) 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thornbrue in view of Ota (U.S. PGPUB 2016/0125234).
Re claim 3 and 11: Thornbrue with respect to the method of claim 2, wherein for each speed metric of the individual, the relative performance of the speed metric is a percentile ranking in relation to only the other individuals who have comparable body mass to the individual. However, Ota teaches a percentile ranking for players based on an assortment of factors including “In example embodiments, an analytical framework may follow the framework set forth above, while employing a universe of athletes similar to the given athlete, wherein, e.g., such similarity may be based on factors such as age, gender, sport, competition type (e.g., college, club, high school, etc.), playing level (e.g., varsity, regional-select, practice-squad, recreational, etc.) or other factors, including combinations of any of these and/or other factors” (see paragraph [0122]). One of ordinary skill of the art will understand that “body mass” can be included in “other factors” and thus the users can be ranked in accordance with their athletic data and according to body mass percentile. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify the swing system of Thornbrue with the percentile ranking system of Ota, for the purpose of informing users of their performance in comparison against other similar users.
Claims 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thornbrue in view of Sabatino (U.S. Patent No. 5,688,183).
Re claim 16 and 21: Thornbrue fails to disclose with respect to the method of claim 1, wherein the athletic motion pertains to swinging a golf club to strike a golf ball, and the one or more sensors comprise at least one of a handset sensor, a wrist sensor, and a club mounted sensor for capturing an impact between the golf club with the golf ball. However, Sabatino discloses a wrist sensor that receives golf swing data (see Fig. 2, object 24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify the sensor based system of Thornbrue to incorporate the wrist sensor as taught by Sabatino, for better collecting hand data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD A RENWICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm.
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.
REGINALD A. RENWICK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3714
/REGINALD A RENWICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715