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 .
Response to Amendment
The following Office Action is responsive to the amendments and remarks received on July 17, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claim recites “equivalent efficiencies” which is not disclosed in the specification. There is support for “a same efficacy” as previously claimed, but the terms ‘efficiency’ and ‘efficacy’ have different plain meanings, and the terms cannot be used interchangeably. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as having “a same efficacy” until further clarification is provided.
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 1-8, 10, 12, 13, and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At step 1, claims 1, 21, and 22 are directed to a system. Thus, the claims are directed to statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
At step 2A, prong I, independent claim 1 (representative) recites, "A system (1) for acquiring and analysing a sports performance, comprising at least one electronic processing unit (4) comprising a reading module (41), configured to receive as input a succession of data associated with execution of said sports performance, a translation module and a user interface (7); a suspension module (403) configured to identify series of actions that conclude with a suspension of play, on a basis of predefined playing rules, where every playing action is defined at least by reciprocal relations between the players (6', 6") and a playing projectile (2), coupled with fundamental playing events marking the sports performance and are uniquely identified over time and derived from said acquired succession of data; a segmentation module (404) configured to divide said series of actions into one or more playing segments, each of which comprises three actions at most, wherein the segmentation module (404) is configured to define successive playing segments and wherein a last action of one segment corresponds to a first action of the next segment; and the translation module serves to provide the user interface with playing instructions for the suspension of play corresponding to the playing segments determined by the system (1) to show a user the playing instructions." These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, recite Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The claimed invention receives as input a succession of data associated with the execution of said sports performance, identifies series of actions, divides said series of actions into playing segments, and provides instructions, which are interactions between people following rules or instructions. The Examiner notes that although the claim limitations are summarized, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim and all of the claim elements individually, as a whole, and in ordered combination.
At step 2A, prong II, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements of "a system", "at least one electronic processing unit", "a reading module", “a translation module”, “a user interface”, "a suspension module", and "a segmentation module". These additional elements are generic computing elements performing generic computer functions such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. Accordingly, these additional elements when considered individually or as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application the additional elements of "a system", "at least one electronic processing unit", "a reading module", “a translation module”, “a user interface”, "a suspension module", and "a segmentation module" are generic computing elements as supported by the specification. These additional elements are generic computing elements performing generic computer functions such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. Claims 21 and 22 are substantially similar to claim 1. Therefore, the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10, 12, 13, and 16-20, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to the same abstract idea of independent claim 1 without significantly more, as indicated in the previous office action.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10, 12, 13, and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reno et al (NPL "A technology platform for automatic high-level tennis game analysis", listed on the IDS dated 5/17/2024) in view of Mettler (US 20190009133).
With reference to claim 1, Reno et al teaches a system (1) for acquiring and analysing a sports performance, comprising at least one electronic processing unit (4) comprising a reading module (41), configured to receive as input a succession of data associated with execution of said sports performance, a translation module (abstract, Fig. 1: low level processing blocks receive input from CAM#, Section 1.2 The proposed system, 2nd par. "We propose the use of dedicated cameras in order to collect data that cover all the court and are able to observe simultaneously the positions of players and ball during actions, see Fig. 2 for translation module);
a suspension module (403) configured to identify series of actions that conclude with a suspension of play, on a basis of predefined playing rules, where every playing action is defined at least by reciprocal relations between the players (6', 6”) and a playing projectile (2), coupled with fundamental playing events marking the sports performance and are uniquely identified over time and derived from said acquired succession of data (Fig. 8 Finite State Machine, Section 3.3, 1st par.);
a segmentation module (404) configured to divide said series of actions into one or more playing segments, each of which comprises three actions at most, wherein the segmentation module (404) is configured to define successive playing segments and wherein a last action of one segment corresponds to a first action of the next segment (Fig. 8 Finite State Machine, Section 3.3, 1st par., p. 174, left column, last par. "Figure: the return, that takes place outside the single sideline; a shot (highlighted in green) played by the white-dressed player on the extreme right side of the court and finally a stroke between the service line and the net (yellow rectangle)" This explains 3 actions at most, where each action begins at the end of the previous stroke.); and
the translation module serves to provide the user interface with playing instructions for the suspension of play corresponding to the playing segments determined by the system (1) to show a user the playing instructions (see page 165, section 1.2, 3rd par., the proposed system logs all plays and can be used by coaches for analysis, see also Table 2, each event is logged in a text state, equivalent to instructions).
Reno does not explicitly teach a user interface, though Reno teaches a technology platform (see page 165, section 1.2, 3rd par., “designing a technology platform that can effectively support coaches”).
Mettler teaches a user interface (see par. 672).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Reno with the user interface as taught by Mettler as a way to interact with all of the information provided by Reno’s system, thus allowing coaches to access the information and share it with players, and since Reno and Mettler are both analogous art in the field of analyzing and providing instruction on sports performance.
With reference to claim 2, Reno et al teaches the system (1) according to claim 1, comprising at least one electronic acquisition device (3) connected to said at least one electronic processing unit (4) and adapted to transmit thereto the aforementioned succession of data associated with the execution of the sports performance (D1 Section 3.1 Low level processing, 1st sentence "this module is responsible for ball and players detection." Fig. 8, p. 170, left column, last sentence);
wherein the at least one electronic processing unit (4) comprises: a first recognition module (42), configured to determine a playing area; a second recognition module (43), configured to identify and distinguish one or more players (6',6") from each other; a third recognition module (44), configured to identify and distinguish a playing projectile (2); a position module (45), configured to determine positions of the players (6', 6") and of the projectile (2); a play scanning module (46), configured to identify the aforesaid fundamental playing events (p. 165, left column, par. 2, "Cameras position and setup are optimized to cover specific areas and perform specific tasks. Ball and players tracking is therefore performed synchronizing and fusing these data streams." p. 165, right column, par. 4, "We propose the use of dedicated cameras in order to collect data that cover all the court and are able to observe simultaneously the positions of players and ball during actions. Broadcast cameras (which commonly show a single point of view of the match) are not suitable for this kind of tasks first because 3D reconstruction of the ball trajectory is necessary to evaluate events, and also because positions of the two teams and the ball in the court are necessary to evaluate tactics and performance. Moreover, broadcast camera videos are often chosen for entertainment purposes then they are not suitable to record all the events necessary for automatic game and players evaluation."),
a stamping module (48), configured to associate a time stamp with each event (p. 169 "Fig, 6 reports an example of the 30 ball trajectory enriched by separate plots for the (X, Y, Z) coordinates. The plot is referred to a complete action that starts with a serve and ends with a scored point, thus the evolution over time of a multiple rally is shown.");
a location module (49), configured to associate with each event the position of the players (6', 6") and the position of the playing projectile (2); an action module (401), configured to associate with each event one or more action parameters corresponding to relations between the players (6', 6") and between the players (6', 6") and the projectile (2) (p. 165, left column, par. 2, "Cameras position and setup are optimized to cover specific areas and perform specific tasks. Ball and players tracking is therefore performed synchronizing and fusing these data streams." p. 165, right column, par. 4, "We propose the use of dedicated cameras in order to collect data that cover all the court and are able to observe simultaneously the positions of players and ball during actions. Broadcast cameras (which commonly show a single point of view of the match) are not suitable for this kind of tasks first because 3D reconstruction of the ball trajectory is necessary to evaluate events, and also because positions of the two teams and the ball in the court are necessary to evaluate tactics and performance. Moreover, broadcast camera videos are often chosen for entertainment purposes then they are not suitable to record all the events necessary for automatic game and players evaluation."),
a classification module (402), configured to associate with each event the respective playing action, on a basis of the action parameters associated therewith, compared to predetermined playing criteria (p. 169, left column, top half).
With reference to claim 3, Reno et al teaches the system (1) according to claim 2, wherein said acquisition device is a camera (3) that transmits to the aforementioned reading module a succession of data defined by one or more videos and wherein the aforesaid first recognition module (42) is configured to determine the playing area (5) in the aforementioned one or more videos; the second recognition module (43) is configured to identify and distinguish the players (6', 6") in the aforementioned one or more videos; the third recognition module (44) is configured to identify and distinguish the aforesaid playing projectile (2); and the play scanning module (46), is configured to identify the aforesaid fundamental playing events in the aforementioned one or more videos (p. 165, right column, par. 3 and 4, "The proposed system consists of a dedicated hardware setup (cameras and computer) and a number of software modules for the automatic processing of the recorded video sequences We propose the use of dedicated cameras in order to collect data that cover all the court and are able to observe simultaneously the positions of players and ball during actions. Broadcast cameras (which commonly show a single point of view of the match) are not suitable for this kind of tasks first because 3D reconstruction of the ball trajectory is necessary to evaluate events, and also because positions of the two teams and the ball in the court are necessary to evaluate tactics and performance. Moreover, broadcast camera videos are often chosen for entertainment purposes then they are not suitable to record all the events necessary for automatic game and players evaluation." See also p. 165, right column, par. 5).
With reference to claim 4, Reno et al teaches the system (1) according to claim 1, wherein said at least one electronic processing unit (4) comprises a movement module, configured to determine trajectories followed by the players (6', 6") and by the projectile (2), based on a change in positions over time; said action parameters also corresponding to dynamic relations between the players (6', 6") and between the players (6', 6") and the projectile (2) (D1 Figs. 4 and 6 and associated paragraphs).
With reference to claim 5, Reno et al teaches the system (1) according to claim 1, wherein the at least one electronic processing unit (4) includes at least one memory module (47) in which data related to the aforesaid events, indexed at least on a basis of said action parameters, are recorded (p. 169, left column, par. 5, "The resulting trajectory classification is stored in the database together with the estimated frame number and the ball coordinates in the court reference system. At the same time, in correspondence of these events players positions are checked and saved in the database. All this data is used by the following decision process that assigns a score, but can be used for further applications such as query of specific key events, statistics and so on."),
wherein the at least one electronic processing unit (4) comprises an interrogation module (405), configured to extract said data on a basis of input requests and wherein the a user interface (7) is configured for an entry of said requests by a user (p. 171 par. 1, "The FSM in this cases is used to label the observed actions and to store in the data base all the information about number of strokes, positions, bounces, with the resulting scores. These data can be used by coaches to perform useful queries and evaluate player performances both during training and official matches." p. 174 par. 3, "The miniatures of players demonstrate the potential use of the data: coaches can perform intelligent queries to the database, can extract specific actions and analyze just the frames in which players hit the ball.").
With reference to claim 6, Reno et al teaches the system according to claim 2, wherein said scanning module (46) is configured also to identify situations of transition in play that occur between the aforementioned events; wherein said stamping module (48) is configured to associate a time stamp with every transition situation identified; wherein said location module (49) is configured to associate the position of the players (6', 6") and the position of the playing projectile (2) with each transition situation (D1 Fig. 8, p. 165, right column, par. 5, p. 168 right column, Section 3.3 par. 1 and 2).
With reference to claim 7, Reno et al teaches the system according to claim 5, wherein data related to intermediate situations are also recorded in the at least one memory module (47), said interrogation module (405) being configured also to extract said data (D1 Fig. 8, p. 165, right column, par. 5, p. 168 right column, Section 3.3 par. 1 and 2).
With reference to claim 8, Reno et al teaches the system (1) according to claim 1, comprising a single electronic acquisition device consisting of a camera (3) (p. 165, right column par. 3 "The proposed system consists of a dedicated hardware setup (cameras and computer) and a number of software modules for the automatic processing of the recorded video sequences."),
wherein said positions of the players (6', 6") and of the playing projectile (2) are identified by two-dimensional coordinates (p. 168 Explanation under Fig. 4, p. 167 left column, par. 2 and 3. If the system can do a 3D reconstruction, it can also do a two-dimensional reconstruction identified by two-dimensional coordinates.).
With reference to claim 10, Reno et al teaches the system (1) according to claim 1, wherein the sports performance is a tennis performance and the segmentation module (404) produces segments thus defined: a last segment of a series is always a pair of actions referring to the following two events: a stroke and a bounce; and remaining segments of a development of play are sets of two or three actions that always include two events corresponding to a respective stroke (abstract, D1 Fig. 8, p. 165 Section 1.2, par. 2 and 3).
With reference to claim 12, Reno et al teaches the system (1) according to claim 1, wherein the at least one electronic processing unit (4) includes a scheme efficacy module configured to couple an efficacy value to each scheme (p. 165 right column, Section 1.2 par. 3 "On the other side a number of processing modules has been implemented to perform low level image processing and high level semantic interpretation and to recognize key events automatically assigning a score. Finally, large attention has been put on designing a technology platform that can effectively support coaches with relatively low cost equipments. The results demonstrate that the proposed system is able to effectively reconstruct 3D ball trajectories, recognize serves, strokes and bounces and make a decision about score assignment [efficacy value] for each action, Moreover, coaches can perform strategic queries to analyze players intentions, behaviours and performance using a combination of both 3D data and key events annotations.").
With reference to claims 13, Reno et al does not specifically teach wherein the at least one electronic processing unit (4) includes a weighting module configured to attribute a different weight to schemes having equivalent efficiencies, on a basis of a respective statistical significance, in order to define a hierarchy of efficacy thereof.
However, Mettler teaches wherein the at least one electronic processing unit (4) includes a weighting module configured to attribute a different weight to schemes having equivalent efficiencies, on the basis of a respective statistical significance, in order to define a hierarchy of efficacy thereof ([0606], [0603], [0604], and [0768]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the efficacy of Reno et al by wherein the processing unit (4) includes a weighting module configured to attribute a different weight to schemes having a same efficacy, on the basis of a respective statistical significance, in order to define a hierarchy of efficacy thereof, as taught by Mettler, since Reno et al already discusses player performance [efficacy] on p. 165 and 174, since Reno et al and Mettler are analogous art, and in order to give more importance to certain player actions (Mettler, [0768]).
With reference to claim 16, Reno et al teaches the system (1) according to claim 1, wherein said at least one electronic processing unit (4) comprises a group efficacy module configured to couple an efficacy value to each group (p. 173 right column, par. 2-4, "At this point the actions can be preliminarily analyzed for statistical purposes grouping them with respect to the number of strokes that occur during the play of a single point. Fig, 11 shows the distribution of the actions according to this representation: short duration ones are reported in blue and cover about 43% of the total number of actions and generally refer to faults, aces or points that finish just after a couple of strokes; medium duration actions are the green ones, represent about 39% and are related to well balanced points in which both players are playing similarly; long duration actions, the red ones, are only 17% and can be exploited similarly to the previous ones. This kind of statistics can be used by coaches to evaluate performances and extract video sequences containing specific events such as actions with one stroke (probably corresponding to fault or winning return), actions with long exchanges, and so on.").
With reference to claim 17, Reno et al teaches the system (1) according to claim 1, wherein the translation module provides the user with playing instructions in a natural language corresponding to segments with efficacies of 50% or more, determined by the system (1) (p. 165 right column, par. 2 "In this paper we propose an innovative approach for event recognition such as strokes, bounces and serves, based on the analysis of the reconstructed 3D ball trajectory which can be used for automatic annotations of video sequences and high level semantic analysis, The extracted action sequences with the associated data can support coaches for the evaluation of game tactics and for improving players performance." p. 165 right column, par. 3 "Moreover, coaches can perform strategic queries to analyze players intentions, behaviours and performance using a combination of both 3D data and key events annotations [natural language]." p. 175 left column, par. 1).
Mettler further teaches wherein the translation module provides the user with playing instructions in a natural language corresponding to segments with efficacies of 50% or more, determined by the system (1) ([0672] natural language, [0599] “ this visualization can be used to verify the effectiveness of previous training goals, training lists, and training schedules, and help update the subsequent training plans” wherein if previous goals are not effective, i.e. less than 50% efficacy, they would not be used in the update).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Reno and Mettler, as they are in the same field of endeavor, and Mettler’s further description of how the translation module determines what segments are most effective and therefore most useful for training ([0599]) would benefit the training platform of Reno by only incorporating the best training information to help players improve.
With reference to claim 18, Reno et al teaches the system (1) according to claim 3, comprising at least two electronic acquisition devices 3, each consisting of a camera (p. 165, right column par. 3 "The proposed system consists of a dedicated hardware setup (cameras and computer) and a number of software modules for the automatic processing of the recorded video sequences." D1 Fig. 2, Section 3.2 3D reconstruction.),
wherein said positions of the players (6', 6") and of the playing projectile (2) are identified by three-dimensional coordinates (p. 168 Explanation under Fig. 4, p. 167 left column, par. 2 and 3).
With reference to claim 19, Reno et al teaches the system (1) according to claim 1, wherein the playing action is further defined by intermediate situational data interposed between the fundamental playing events that mark the sports performance (page 168, section 3.3 par. 1, “a suspended game where inactive balls are collected from the tennis court…”).
With reference to claim 20, Reno et al teaches the system (1) according to claim 1, wherein the playing instructions correspond to the most efficacious types of the playing segments to show the playing instructions (page 171, column 2, “These data can be used by coaches to perform useful queries and evaluate player performances both during training and official matches.”)
With reference to claim 21, Reno teaches a system (1) for acquiring and analyzing a sports performance comprising at least one electronic processing unit (4) comprising:
a reading module (41), configured to receive as input a succession of data associated with the execution of said sports performance (abstract, Fig. 1: low level processing blocks receive input from CAM#, Section 1.2 The proposed system, 2nd par. "We propose the use of dedicated cameras in order to collect data that cover all the court and are able to observe simultaneously the positions of players and ball during actions);
a suspension module (403) configured to identify series of actions that conclude with a suspension of play, on a basis of predefined playing rules, where every playing action is defined at least by reciprocal relations between the players (6', 6") and a playing projectile (2), coupled with fundamental playing events and intermediate situational data interposed between the fundamental playing events that mark the sports performance and, are uniquely identified over time and derived from said acquired succession of data (Fig. 8 Finite State Machine, Section 3.3, 1st par.);
a segmentation module (404) configured to divide said series of actions into one or more playing segments, each of which comprises three actions at most (Fig. 8 Finite State Machine, Section 3.3, 1st par., p. 174, left column, last par. "Figure: the return, that takes place outside the single sideline; a shot (highlighted in green) played by the white-dressed player on the extreme right side of the court and finally a stroke between the service line and the net (yellow rectangle)" This explains 3 actions at most.; and
a translation module that serves to provide a user interface with playing instructions determined by the system (1) to show a user the playing instructions (see page 165, section 1.2, 3rd par., the proposed system logs all plays and can be used by coaches for analysis, see also Table 2, each event is logged in a text state, equivalent to instructions).
Reno et al fails to teach, but Mettler teaches:
wherein the segmentation module assigns a score value to a succession of playing segments on the basis of possible actions with which the sports performance develops and on the basis of predefined playing rules, the score value used to determine efficacy of the sports performance ([0606]-[0610]); and
playing instructions corresponding to the score value and the most efficacious types of playing segments ([0547]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the efficacy of Reno et al by wherein the processing unit (4) includes a weighting module configured to attribute a different weight to schemes having a same efficacy, on the basis of a respective statistical significance, in order to define a hierarchy of efficacy thereof, as taught by Mettler, since Reno et al already discusses player performance [efficacy] on p. 165 and 174, since Reno et al and Mettler are analogous art, and in order to give more importance to certain player actions (Mettler, [0768]).
With reference to claim 22, Reno et al. teaches a system (1) for acquiring and analyzing a sports performance comprising at least one electronic processing unit (4) comprising
a reading module (41), configured to receive as input a succession of data associated with the execution of said sports performance (abstract, Fig. 1: low level processing blocks receive input from CAM#, Section 1.2 The proposed system, 2nd par. "We propose the use of dedicated cameras in order to collect data that cover all the court and are able to observe simultaneously the positions of players and ball during actions);
a suspension module (403) configured to identify series of actions that conclude with a suspension of play, on a basis of predefined playing rules, where every playing action is defined at least by reciprocal relations between the players (6', 6") and a playing projectile (2), coupled with fundamental playing events and intermediate situational data interposed between the fundamental playing events that mark the sports performance and are uniquely identified over time and derived from said acquired succession of data (Fig. 8 Finite State Machine, Section 3.3, 1st par., and page 168, section 3.3 par. 1, “a suspended game where inactive balls are collected from the tennis court…”);
a segmentation module (404) configured to divide said series of actions into one or more playing segments, each of which comprises three actions at most (Fig. 8 Finite State Machine, Section 3.3, 1st par., p. 174, left column, last par. "Figure: the return, that takes place outside the single sideline; a shot (highlighted in green) played by the white-dressed player on the extreme right side of the court and finally a stroke between the service line and the net (yellow rectangle)" This explains 3 actions at most.);
wherein the at least one electronic processing unit (4) comprises a segment gathering module (406) configured to define playing schemes, each of which comprises at least two segments with which action parameters are associated (Fig. 8 Finite State Machine, Section 3.3, 1st par.);
a translation module that serves to provide the user interface with playing instructions corresponding to the most efficacious types of the playing segments determined by the system (1) to show a user the playing instructions (see page 165, section 1.2, 3rd par., the proposed system logs all plays and can be used by coaches for analysis, see also Table 2, each event is logged in a text state, equivalent to instructions).
Reno et al fails to teach, but Mettler teaches
an aggregation module configured to group at least one plurality of schemes into respective groups (see [0609], composite score),
wherein the aggregation module is configured to group at least one plurality of schemes linked to each other in a temporally continuous manner into respective groups (see [0609], “This representation also enables the comparison of skill elements over different time periods, or between different skill elements.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Reno and Mettler, as they are in the same field of endeavor, and Mettler’s further description of grouping schemes would benefit the training platform of Reno by enabling the identification of player strengths and weaknesses (Mettler, [0609]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are eligible under 35 USC 101 because the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive. The instant claims are not analogous to Classen because while in Classen, the ultimate step was to immunize patients, which is not an abstract concept, in the instant claims, the ultimate step is to provide instructions, which is still abstract. Because the user interface is recited at a high level of generality, it does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, any suggested improvement regarding using less memory is not reflected in the claims, such that this argument is also not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument regarding claim 19 and the support provided in the specification for a technical improvement is not persuasive. While the features that Applicant references are disclosed in the specification, Examiner does not see any discussion in the specification of a technical improvement to a technical problem. If Applicant believes that the interposition of data is reflective of a technical improvement, further demonstration of how the specification supports this position is requested.
Therefore, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8, 10, 12, 13, and 16-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant also argues that Reno does not teach the same type of ‘actions’ as what is disclosed in the specification. However, the specification gives examples, but not a finite definition for the term ‘action,’ thus rendering this argument moot.
Further, Reno does in fact disclose segments, where each individual contact with the ball and its subsequent trajectory is a segment. See, for instance, Figure 6, which shows trajectories and contact points, where each contact point (local minimum) reflects the beginning or end of a segment.
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 ILANA L SPAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7537. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at 571-272-5350. 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.
/ILANA L SPAR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights