DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites a terminal including one or more memory devices storing instructions thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive, from a display of the terminal, an indication of a selection of a plurality of pieces of sports equipment. The limitation of receive, from a display of the terminal, an indication of a selection of a plurality of pieces of sports equipment, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “memory device” and “by one or more processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “memory device” and “by one or more processor,” language, “receive” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally picking out sports equipment in their mind. Similarly, the limitations of: provide, receive, identify, execute, determine and generate are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The same interpretation is applied to the remaining steps in claim 1. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites a couple additional elements – memory and one or more processors. The memory and one or more processors is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor implementing a step) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does 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 using memory and one or more processors amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Similar reasoning is applied to claim 2-20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Publication No. 2022/0379167 A1 to Lee et al. (hereinafter, “Lee”).
Concerning claim 1, Lee discloses a sports bay (paragraphs [0068], [0085]), comprising:
a terminal including one or more memory devices storing instructions thereon that, when executed by one or more processors (paragraphs [0054]-[0057]), cause the one or more processors to:
receive, from a display of the terminal, an indication of a selection of a plurality of pieces of sports equipment, the indication including information to identify the plurality of pieces of sports equipment (paragraphs [0064]-[0068]);
provide, via the display of the terminal, a first prompt to initiate execution of a plurality of interactions between an object and a user using at least one piece of sports equipment of the plurality of pieces of sports equipment to execute the plurality of interactions (paragraphs [0068]-[0074]);
receive, from a camera responsive to execution of the plurality of interactions, a first set of data corresponding to the plurality of interactions (paragraphs [0059], [0068]-[0074], [0128]);
identify, from the first set of data, one or more images associated with the plurality of interactions (paragraphs [0120], [0121]);
execute a Machine Learning (ML) model to apply bounding boxes to one or more objects included in the one or more images (paragraphs [0067], [0068], [0078]-[0085]);
determine, by the ML model responsive to application of the bounding boxes, one or more aspects of the plurality of interactions (paragraphs [0067], [0068], [0078]-[0085], [0093]); and
generate, using the one or more aspects, a performance metric for the plurality of interactions (paragraphs [0078]-[0081], [0104], [0146], [0196], [0201]).
Concerning claims 2, 11, and 18, Lee discloses wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to: provide, via the display of the terminal, a message including the performance metric for the plurality of interactions; receive, from the display of the terminal, a second indication of a selection of a given piece of sports equipment of the plurality of pieces of sports equipment; and provide, via the display of the terminal responsive to receipt of the second indication, a graphical representation of one or more interactions of the plurality of interactions that pertain to the given piece of sports equipment of the plurality of pieces of sports equipment (paragraphs [0078]-[0081], [0104], [0146], [0196], [0201]).
Concerning claims 3, 12, and 19, Lee discloses wherein determine, by the ML model responsive to application of the bounding boxes, the one or more aspects of the plurality of interactions includes: identifying, based on the one or more images, one or more positions of the user, wherein the one or more positions of the user pertain to the plurality of interactions; comparing the one or more positions of the user with a plurality of predetermined positions; detecting, responsive to comparing the one or more positions of the user with the plurality of predetermined positions, one or more given interactions of the plurality of interactions; and associating, based on the bounding boxes, the one or more given interactions of the plurality of interactions with one or more positions of the object (paragraphs [0067], [0068], [0078]-[0085], [0093]).
Concerning claims 4, and 13, Lee discloses wherein generate, using the one or more aspects, the performance metric for the plurality of interactions includes: determining, based on the bounding boxes, points of contact between the user and the object pertaining to the plurality of interactions; identifying, based on the points of contact, a first amount of given interactions of the plurality of interactions that exceed a predetermined threshold and a second amount of given interactions of the plurality of interactions below the predetermined threshold; and determining, based on the first amount of given interactions and the second amount of given interactions, one or more scores for the plurality of interactions (paragraphs [0067], [0068], [0078]-[0085], [0093]).
Concerning claims 5, 14, and 20, Lee discloses wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to: receive, via the display of the terminal, a second indication of a selection of a given mode of a plurality of modes of the sports bay; determine, responsive to receipt of the second indication, current operating parameters of the camera; and update the current operating parameters of the camera based on the selection of the given mode (paragraphs [0059], [0068]-[0074], [0128]).
Concerning claims 6, and 15, Lee discloses wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to: determine, responsive to selection of a given mode of a plurality of modes of the sports bay, one or more changes to current operating parameters of the camera for use in capturing the plurality of interactions; and receive, responsive to the camera capturing the plurality of interactions, information pertaining to the plurality of interactions (paragraphs [0059], [0068]-[0074], [0128]).
Concerning claims 7, and 16, Lee discloses wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to: evaluate, while the user performs the plurality of interactions based on information obtained by the camera, one or more characteristics of the user associated with the performance metric for the plurality of interactions; and generate, responsive to evaluation of the one or more characteristics, a recommendation for a second plurality of pieces of sports equipment, the second plurality of pieces of sports equipment including the at least one piece of sports equipment used by the user and at least one second piece of sports equipment to adjust the one or more characteristics of the user (paragraphs [0078]-[0081], [0104], [0146], [0196], [0201]).
Concerning claim 8, Lee discloses wherein the at least one piece of sports equipment used by the user includes at least one of soccer cleats or a net, and wherein the object includes a soccer ball (paragraphs [0052], [0067], [0078]-[0081], [0104], [0146], [0196], [0201]).
Concerning claim 9, Lee discloses wherein the camera is disposed proximate to the sports bay, and wherein the camera is adjustable between operating parameters based on signals provided by the one or more processors (paragraphs [0059], [0068]-[0074], [0128]).
Concerning claim 10, see the rejection of claim 1.
Concerning claim 17, see the rejection of claim 1 and paragraphs [0052], [0067], [0078]-[0081], [0104], [0146], [0196], [0201].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed in the PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALINA D BLAISE whose telephone number is (571)270-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 7:00 am - 5:00 pm (PT).
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at 571-272-7147. 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.
MALINA D. BLAISE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/MALINA D. BLAISE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights