DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims1-6 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claim 1-4 and 6 falls within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)); For example, each of claim 5 falls within category of process;
Regarding Claims 1-4
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of evaluates a subjet.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
An evaluation apparatus which evaluates, using time series data related to a body movement of a subject and time series data related to a behavior of an object accompanying the body movement, the subject on the basis of an error between a behavior of the object estimated from the body movement and an actual behavior of the object...
The italicized limitations above represent a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment) . Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “evaluates, using time series data related to a body movement of a subject and time series data related to a behavior of an object accompanying the body movement, the subject on the basis of an error between a behavior of the object estimated from the body movement and an actual behavior of the object; determining material properties” a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment).
Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, first additional first element is “time series data related to a body movement of a subject and time series data related to a behavior of an object accompanying the body movement” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering and or pre solution activity and /or field of use) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The 2nd additional element is “An evaluation apparatus”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic computer components, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
In view of the above, the two “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic component with software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
.
Step 2B
Claims1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, the limitation of Claim 1 contains additional elements that are, i.e. “An evaluation apparatus”, generic devices, which are well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and MPEP 2106.05(d))The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
.
Dependent Claims 2-4
Dependent claims 2-4 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-4 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For example, the limitations of Claims 2 and 4: to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering and or pre solution activity and /or field of use and or generic structure) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
For example, the limitations of Claim 3 is a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment).
Claims 5-6
Claims 5-6 contains language similar to claims 1-4 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 5-6 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101(abstract idea).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tabuchi et al. (US 2021/0031086).
Regarding Claims 1 and 5-6. Tabuchi teaches an evaluation apparatus (fig. 3) which evaluates(160: fig. 14), using time series data related to a body movement of a subject (152: fig. 14) and time series data related to a behavior of an object accompanying the body movement(153: fig. 14), the subject on the basis of an error between a behavior of the object estimated from the body movement and an actual behavior of the object(extraction unit 158 extracts an average value, a median value, or a variance of the swing information belonging to each group as the representative swing information of the group:[160]; the swing speed included in the representative swing information of group GU2 (that is, an average swing speed for the type of pitch of “curveball”) is larger than the swing speed included in the representative swing information of group GU1. (that is, an average swing speed for the type of pitch of “fastball”). In this case, evaluation unit 160 evaluates that subject 2 has such a swing characteristic that the subject swings at a larger speed for “curveball” than “fastball.”:[161]).
Regarding Claim 2. Tabuchi further teaches the time series data related to the body movement of the subject is time series data related to a motion of the subject viewed from a subject's opponent([0149]-[0152]).
Regarding Claim 3. Tabuchi further teaches an estimation unit which estimate the behavior of the object accompanying the body movement from the time series data related to the body movement of the subject([0154]-[0159]); and
an evaluation unit which calculate a higher evaluation as a deviation between the estimated behavior of the object and the actual behavior of the object increases ([0160]-[0162]).
Regarding Claim 4. Tabuchi further teaches the movement performed by the subject is a competition type ball game(1000: fig. 1), and the object is a ball used in the ball game(30: fig.1).
Examiner Notes
Claims 1-6 are also rejected by Nagaishi et al. (US 20180200575), see fig. 18 and US Bentley et al. (US 9396385), see figs. 22-23, 25 and 29, Under 102(a)(1)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a)US 10486043: disclose Disclosed are an image-sensing-based sensing device and sensing method that are capable of acquiring an image of the motion of a pitched ball or a hit ball and analyzing the acquired image in order to calculate an accurate and rapid motion model of the ball, which shows how the ball moves, in a baseball practice apparatus that allows a user to perform a baseball practice or to play a baseball game, whereby it is possible to very accurately and rapidly calculate various kinds of information necessary for conducting the baseball practice or the baseball game, such as motion parameters of the pitched ball or the hit ball, a baseball practice apparatus using the sensing device and the sensing method, and a method of controlling the baseball practice apparatus.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights