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 .
Status of the Claims
This is a Non-Final first action on the merits for the application filed on 5/17/2024. A preliminary amendment was filed on 5/17/2024 amending claims 1-5 and 7-17. Therefore, claims 1-17 are pending addressed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/17/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites, “where every playing action is defined at least by the reciprocal relations between the players (6', 6)”. It should recite, “(6', 6”).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a reading module”, “a suspension module”, ”a segmentation module” in claim 1, “a first recognition module”, “a second recognition module”, “a third recognition module”, “a position module”, “a play scanning module”, “a stamping module”, “a location module”, “an action module”, and “a classification module” of claim 2, “reading module”, “first recognition module”, “second recognition module”, “third recognition module”, and “play scanning module” of claim 3, “a movement module” of claim 4, “at least one memory module” and “an interrogation module” of claim 5, “scanning module” and “stamping module” of claim 6, “the memory module” and “interrogation module” of claim 7, “segmentation module” of claim 9, “the segmentation module” of claim 10, “a segment gathering module” of claim 11, “a scheme efficacy module” of claim 12, “a weighting module” of claim 13, “an aggregation module” of claim 14, “the aggregation module” of claim 15, “a group efficacy module” of claim 16, and “a translation module” of claim 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-18 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 1 recites, “1. (currently amended) 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 the execution of said sports performance; a suspension module (403) configured to identify series of actions that conclude with the suspension of play, on the basis of predefined playing rules, where every playing action is defined at least by the reciprocal relations between the players (6', 6)" and the playing projectile (2) coupled with fundamental playing events marking the sports performance, 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.” Each underlined limitation lack antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite. For purpose of examination, these limitations will be interpreted as “1. (currently amended) 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 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, 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.” Examiner suggests amending as such.
Claims 2-18 are also rejected because of their dependencies on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites, “comprising at least one electronic acquisition device (3) connected to said processing unit (4)…where the processing unit (4)...” It is unclear to which “said processing unit” and “the processing unit” claim 2 is referring because claim 1 recites, “at least one electronic unit” which can be interpreted as 2 or more processing units. Therefore, claim 2 is indefinite. For purpose of examination this limitation will be interpreted as “comprising at least one electronic acquisition device (3) connected to said at least one electronic processing unit (4) )…where the at least one electronic processing unit (4)...” Examiner suggest amending as such.
Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 17 are also rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Claim 2 recites, “on the basis of the action parameters”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the underlined limitation. Therefore, claim 2 is indefinite. For purpose of examination this limitation will be interpreted as “on a basis of the action parameters”. Examiner suggests amending as such.
Claim 3 recites, “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 video; the second recognition module (43) is configured to identify and distinguish the players (6', 6") in the video…and the play scanning module (46), is configured to identify the aforesaid fundamental playing events in the video.” It is unclear to which “the aforementioned video” and “the video” claim 3 is referring because claim 3 also recites “one or more videos” which can be interpreted as two or more videos. Therefore, claim 3 is indefinite. For purpose of examination, this claim will be interpreted as “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…and the play scanning module (46), is configured to identify the aforesaid fundamental playing events the aforementioned one or more videos.” Examiner suggests amending as such.
Claim 4 recites, “on the basis of change of the change”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the underlined limitations. Therefore, claim 4 is indefinite. For purpose of examination this limitation will be interpreted as “on a basis of change of a change”. Examiner suggests amending as such.
Claim 5 recites, “indexed at least on the basis of said action parameters, are recorded…to extract said data on the basis of input requests…configured for the entry of said requests by a user.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the underlined limitations. Therefore, claim 5 is indefinite. For purpose of examination these limitations will be interpreted as “indexed at least on a basis of said action parameters, are recorded…to extract said data on a basis of input requests…configured for an entry of said requests by a user Examiner suggests amending as such.
Claim 7 recites, “recorded in the memory module (47)”. It is unclear to which “the memory module” claim 7 is referring because claim 7 depends on claim 5 and claim 5 recites, “”at least one memory module (47)” which can be interpreted as two or more memory modules. Therefore, claim 7 is indefinite. For purpose of examination, this claim will be interpreted as “recorded in the at least one memory module (47)”. Examiner suggests amending as such.
Claim 9 recites, “where the last action of one segment corresponds to the first of the next segment ”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the underlined limitations. Therefore, claim 9 is indefinite. For purpose of examination this limitation will be interpreted as “where a last action of one segment corresponds to a first action of the next segment”. Examiner suggests amending as such.
Claim 10 recites, “the last segment of a series…the remaining segments of the development of play”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the underlined limitations. Therefore, claim 10 is indefinite. For purpose of examination this limitation will be interpreted as “a last segment of a series…remaining segments of a development of play”. Examiner suggests amending as such.
Claim 11 recites, “each of which comprises at least two segments with which the same predefined action parameters are associated.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the underlined limitation. Also, the term “the same predefined action parameters” is a relative term that is not defined by the claims. It is unclear which predefined action parameters are being compared. Therefore, claim 11 is indefinite.
Claim 13 recites, “on the basis of a respective statistical significance”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the underlined limitation. Therefore, claim 13 is indefinite. For purpose of examination this limitation will be interpreted as “on a basis of a respective statistical significance”. Examiner suggests amending as such.
Claim 13 recites, “having a same efficacy.” The term “a same efficacy” is a relative term that is not defined by the claims. It is unclear which efficacies are being compared. Therefore, claim 13 is indefinite.
Claim 17 recites, “to provide the user…the most efficacious types of segments...the system (1) of the invention.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the underlined limitations. Also, the term “the most efficacious types of segments” is a relative term that is not defined by the claims. It is unclear how it is determined which types of segments are “most efficacious”. Therefore, claim 17 is indefinite.
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 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Under step 1, claim 1 is directed to a system. Thus, claim is directed to statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Independent claim 1 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 the execution of said sports performance; a suspension module (403) configured to identify series of actions that conclude with the suspension of play, on the basis of predefined playing rules, where every playing action is defined at least by the reciprocal relations between the players (6', 6)" and the playing projectile (2) coupled with fundamental playing events marking the sports performance, 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.” These limitations, except for the italicized portions, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, recite certain methods of organizing human activity. The claimed invention receive as input a succession of data associated with the execution of said sports performance, identifies series of actions, and divides said series of actions into playing segments, 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.
Step 2A, Prong 2: 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 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.
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 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. Therefore, the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-18, 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.
‘Claim 2. (currently amended) The system (1) according to claim 1, comprising at least one electronic acquisition device (3) connected to said processing unit (4) and adapted to transmit thereto the aforementioned succession of data associated with the execution of the sports performance; wherein the 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, a stamping module (48), configured to associate a time stamp with each event; 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), a classification module (402), configured to associate with each event the respective playing action, on the basis of the action parameters associated therewith, compared to predetermined playing criteria.” The steps of determining, identifying, distinguishing, and associating are part of the same abstract idea as claim 1 for the same reasons as claim 1. The transmitting step is insignificant pre-solution activity that is generically recited. The device, unit, and modules are generic computing elements. As such, these do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 3 recites, “3. (currently amended) 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 video; the second recognition module (43) is configured to identify and distinguish the players (6', 6") in the video; 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 video.” The steps of determining, identifying, and distinguishing are part of the same abstract idea as claim 1 for the same reasons as claim 1. The transmitting step is insignificant pre-solution activity that is generically recited. The device, camera, and modules are generic computing elements. As such, these do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 4 recites, “4. (currently amended) The system (1) according to claim 1, wherein said processing unit (4) comprises a movement module, configured to determine trajectories followed by the players (6', 6") and by the projectile (2), on the basis of the change in said 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).” The step of determining is part of the same abstract idea as claim 1 for the same reasons as claim 1. The unit and module are generic computing elements. As such, these do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 5 recites, “5. (currently amended) The system (1) according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit (4) includes at least one memory module (47) in which data related to the aforesaid events, indexed at least on the basis of said action parameters, are recorded, wherein the processing unit (4) comprises an interrogation module (405), configured to extract said data on the basis of input requests and wherein the processing unit (4) includes or is connected to a user interface (7), configured for the entry of said requests by a user.” The step of extracting is part of the same abstract idea as claim 1 for the same reasons as claim 1. The unit, modules, and user interface are generic computing elements. As such, these do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 6 recites, "6. (original) 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.” The steps of identifying and associating are part of the same abstract idea as claim 1 for the same reasons as claim 1. The modules are generic computing elements. As such, these do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 7 recites, “7. (currently amended) The system according to claim 5, wherein data related to intermediate situations are also recorded in the memory module (47), said interrogation module (405) being configured also to extract said data.” The step of extracting is part of the same abstract idea as claim 1 for the same reasons as claim 1. The modules are generic computing elements. As such, these do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 8 recites, “8. (currently amended) The system (1) according to claim 1, comprising a single electronic acquisition device consisting of a camera (3), wherein said positions of the players (6', 6") and of the playing projectile (2) are identified by two-dimensional coordinates.” The electronic acquisition device and camera are generic computing elements for the same reasons as claim 1. As such, these do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 9 recites, “9. (currently amended) The system (1) according to claim 1, wherein the segmentation module (404) is configured to define successive segments and wherein the last action of one segment corresponds to the first of the next segment.” The step of defining is part of the same abstract idea as claim 1 for the same reasons as claim 1. The module is a generic computing element for the same reasons as claim 1. As such, these do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 10 recites, “10. (currently amended) The system (1) according to claim 1, wherein the sports performance is a tennis performance and the segmentation module (404) produces segments thus defined: the last segment of a series is always a pair of actions referring to the following two events: a stroke and a bounce; and the remaining segments of the development of play are sets of two or three actions that always include two events corresponding to a respective stroke.” The step of producing is part of the same abstract idea as claim 1 for the same reasons as claim 1. The module is a generic computing element for the same reasons as claim 1. As such, these do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 11 recites, “11. (currently amended) The system (1) according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit (4) comprises a segment gathering module (406) configured to define playing schemes, each of which comprises at least two segments with which the same predefined action parameters are associated.” The step of defining is part of the same abstract idea as claim 1 for the same reasons as claim 1. The unit and module are a generic computing element for the same reasons as claim 1. As such, these do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 12 recites, “12. (currently amended) The system (1) according to claim 11, wherein the processing unit (4) includes a scheme efficacy module configured to couple an efficacy value to each scheme.” The step of coupling is part of the same abstract idea as claim 1 for the same reasons as claim 1. The unit and module are a generic computing element for the same reasons as claim 1. As such, these do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 13 recites, “13. (currently amended) The system (1) according to claim 12, 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.” The step of attributing is part of the same abstract idea as claim 1 for the same reasons as claim 1. The unit and module are a generic computing element for the same reasons as claim 1. As such, these do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 14 recites, “14. (currently amended) The system (1) according to claim 11, wherein said processing unit (4) comprises an aggregation module configured to group at least one plurality of schemes into respective groups.” The step of grouping is part of the same abstract idea as claim 1 for the same reasons as claim 1. The unit and module are a generic computing element for the same reasons as claim 1. As such, these do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 15 recites, “15. (currently amended) The system (1) according to claim 14, wherein the aggregation module is configured to group at least one plurality of schemes linked to each another in a temporally continuous manner into respective groups.” The step of grouping is part of the same abstract idea as claim 1 for the same reasons as claim 1. The module is a generic computing element for the same reasons as claim 1. As such, these do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 16 recites, “16. (currently amended) The system (1) according to claim 15, wherein said processing unit (4) comprises a group efficacy module configured to couple an efficacy value to each group.” The step of grouping is part of the same abstract idea as claim 1 for the same reasons as claim 1. The unit and module are a generic computing element for the same reasons as claim 1. As such, these do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 17 recites, “17. (currently amended) The system (1) according to claim 9, wherein said processing unit (4) comprises a translation module to provide the user with playing instructions corresponding to the most efficacious types of segments determined by the system (1) of the invention in a natural language.” The step of providing is part of the same abstract idea as claim 1 for the same reasons as claim 1. The unit and module are a generic computing element for the same reasons as claim 1. As such, these do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 18 recites, “18. (original) The system (1) according to claim 3, comprising at least two electronic acquisition devices 3, each consisting of a camera, wherein said positions of the players (6', 6") and of the playing projectile (2) are identified by three-dimensional coordinates.” The devices and cameras are a generic computing element for the same reasons as claim 1. As such, these do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more for the same reasons as claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-18 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reno et al (NPL “A technology platform for automatic high-level tennis game analysis”, listed on the IDS dated 5/17/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Reno et al teach
1. (currently amended) 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 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 the suspension of play, on the basis of predefined playing rules,
where every playing action is defined at least by the reciprocal relations between the players (6', 6)" and the playing projectile (2) coupled with fundamental playing events marking the sports performance, 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.).
Regarding claim 2, Reno et al teach
2. (currently amended) The system (1) according to claim 1, comprising at least one electronic acquisition device (3) connected to said 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 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 the basis of the action parameters associated therewith, compared to predetermined playing criteria (p. 169, left column, top half).
Regarding claim 3, Reno et al teach
3. (currently amended) 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 video; the second recognition module (43) is configured to identify and distinguish the players (6', 6") in the video; 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 video (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).
Regarding claim 4, Reno et al teach
4. (currently amended) The system (1) according to claim 1, wherein said processing unit (4) comprises a movement module, configured to determine trajectories followed by the players (6', 6") and by the projectile (2), on the basis of the change in said 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).
Regarding claim 5, Reno et al teach
5. (currently amended) The system (1) according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit (4) includes at least one memory module (47) in which data related to the aforesaid events, indexed at least on the 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 processing unit (4) comprises an interrogation module (405), configured to extract said data on the basis of input requests and
wherein the processing unit (4) includes or is connected to a user interface (7), configured for the 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.").
Regarding claim 6, Reno et al teach
6. (original) 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).
Regarding claim 7, Reno et al teach
7. (currently amended) The system according to claim 5, wherein data related to intermediate situations are also recorded in the 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).
Regarding claim 8, Reno et al teach
8. (currently amended) 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.).
Regarding claim 9, Reno et al teach
9. (currently amended) The system (1) according to claim 1, wherein the segmentation module (404) is configured to define successive segments and
wherein the last action of one segment corresponds to the first of the next segment (p. 168, right column, Section 3.3, par. 1 "Once 3D positions of ball and players have been retrieved, this module is responsible to segment the acquired sequence into actions, This is initially done by detecting idle parts during the game, where no ball is moving, and splitting the whole sequence accordingly. These chunks of sequences might contain valid game actions or just show a suspended game where inactive balls are collected from the tennis court or exchanged between players while preparing for the next round of serves, a situation very frequent during training sessions. This classification is done after the ball trajectories evaluation.").
Regarding claim 10, Reno et al teach
10. (currently amended) The system (1) according to claim 1, wherein the sports performance is a tennis performance and the segmentation module (404) produces segments thus defined: the last segment of a series is always a pair of actions referring to the following two events: a stroke and a bounce; and the remaining segments of the 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).
Regarding claim 11, Reno et al teach
11. (currently amended) The system (1) according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit (4) comprises a segment gathering module (406) configured to define playing schemes, each of which comprises at least two segments with which the same predefined action parameters are associated (p. 168, right column, Section 3.3, par. 1 "Once 3D positions of ball and players have been retrieved, this module is responsible to segment the acquired sequence into actions, This is initially done by detecting idle parts during the game, where no ball is moving, and splitting the whole sequence accordingly. These chunks of sequences might contain valid game actions or just show a suspended game where inactive balls are collected from the tennis court or exchanged between players while preparing for the next round of serves, a situation very frequent during training sessions. This classification is done after the ball trajectories evaluation.").
Regarding claim 12, Reno et al teach
12. (currently amended) The system (1) according to claim 11, wherein the 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.").
Regarding claim 14, Reno et al teach
14. (currently amended) The system (1) according to claim 11, wherein said processing unit (4) comprises an aggregation module configured to group at least one plurality of schemes into respective groups (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.").
Regarding claim 15, Reno et al teach
15. (currently amended) The system (1) according to claim 14, wherein the aggregation module is configured to group at least one plurality of schemes linked to each another in a temporally continuous manner into respective groups (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.").
Regarding claim 16, Reno et al teach
16. (currently amended) The system (1) according to claim 15, wherein said 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.").
Regarding claim 17, Reno et al teach
17. (currently amended) The system (1) according to claim 9, wherein said processing unit (4) comprises a translation module to provide the user with playing instructions corresponding to the most efficacious types of segments determined by the system (1) of the invention in a natural language (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).
Regarding claim 18, Reno et al teach
18. (original) 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).
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 13 is 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).
Regarding claims 13, Reno et al does not specifically teach
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.
However, Mettler teaches
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 ([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]).
Relevant Prior Art
Distante (US 8300935) discusses detecting and classifying events during motion actions, in particular "offside" event in the football game. The system allows determining such event in a real-time and semi-automatic context, by taking into account the variability of the environmental conditions and of the dynamics of the events which can be traced back to the offside. The present invention proposes itself with a not-invasive technique, compatible with the usual course of the match.
Jeong (US 20070124679) discusses providing apparatus and method, and more particularly, provides a video summary service providing apparatus and method in which a summary image of a video is generated by considering a resources state of a device for summarizing the video and an expected replay time used in summarizing desired by the user, and the generated summary image, prepared to be suitable for a replay time desired by the user, is provided to the user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIE P. BRADY whose telephone number is (571)272-4855. The examiner can normally be reached Tues-Thurs 8:00 - 2:00 ET.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at (571)270-7537. 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.
/MARIE P BRADY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622