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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Note: Claims filed 2/5/2026 appears to be the original claims from 7/1/2024. For purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner takes the position that the applicant intended not to provide any claim amendments in accordance to the arguments filed 2/5/2026 and treating the claims filed 5/15/2025 to be the most current claims in the prosecution.
Specification
The substitute specification filed 2/5/2026 has not been entered because it consists of new matter. Furthermore, the 2/5/2026 marked substitute specification does not provide appropriate identification of what was amended. Examiner looked to previous substitute specification filed 2/27/2025 for the markups.
Applicant asserts that the substitute specification introduces no new matter under 37 CFR 1.125(b). This assertion is not persuasive. As detailed in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) below, the substitute specification adds new matter.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-15 are 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. Although the original claim 1 specifies “the processor triangulates the location of the object of interest”, there are no support for the processor triangulates the location of the object of interest based on live play action from at least three of the plurality of witness cameras. These language were later added to the substitute specification. The additions expand the disclosure beyond the original, introducing new concepts for camera-based triangulation, human-assisted pinpointing, lidar integration, and precise accuracy levels not originally described. The original relies on emitter/receiver-based tracking [0005]-[0010], [0021]-[0029], not camera triangulation or remote operators. While the original mentions "plural camera sources from different angles" in the context of location emitters [0006], [0025], this is limited to aiding emitter signals, not independent triangulation or ingestion of live video for processing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/5/2026 that claims 1, 2, 5-10, and 13-15 are patentable over Kohler in view of Jayaram are not persuasive. Applicant argues the rejection is for anticipation, but the rejection is under § 103 for obviousness. The arguments mischaracterize the mapping: Kohler teaches the base system for determining object location during broadcast play using cameras and operator input for approximate pinpointing ([0049]: operator selects image with approximate coordinate via user interface; system refines via image analysis). Kohler discloses live play action ingestion from cameras ([0040], [0043]: real-time image data from cameras for field analysis). Jayaram is relied upon for explicit triangulation using multiple unsynchronized cameras during live action ([0003]: 3D tracking via multiple cameras without time synchronization; [0014]: triangulation of ball position from video frames).
Contrary to Applicant's assertion, Jayaram teaches triangulation based on live play action from witness cameras (e.g., smartphones capturing unsynchronized video at 30-60 FPS for real-time 3D tracking in sports like cricket/football analogs). Combining Jayaram's triangulation with Kohler's system (including remote operator input alongside processing) would have been obvious to improve accuracy in dynamic environments, as both address sports object tracking for broadcast/analysis. The combination yields the claimed "remote operator's input alongside such triangulation," as Kohler's operator input assists initial location, refined by Jayaram's multi-camera triangulation.
The rejections are maintained.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-10, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohler (US 2021/0133482 A1 in view of Jayaram (US 20230100572 A1).
1. Kohler discloses a system for determining a location of the objects during broadcast play action, comprising:
a processor configured to track an object of interest on or around a field of play during broadcast play action utilizing ingested live play action from a plurality of witness cameras, wherein the processor triangulates the location of the object of interest (Fig. 1), [0040], [0043];
a user interface configured to accept a remote operator’s input to pinpoint the object of interest, wherein the input is used alongside such triangulation to assist in pinpointing the object’s location (i.e. a user or an operator 44 selects an image 110A that includes the approximate coordinate of the position of the football 50 and transmits the approximate coordinate to the system 110 via, for example, the user interface 122), [0049], (302B: Fig. 3), (Fig. 5).
Kohler may be silent with regards to triangulating the location of the object of interest based on live play action from at least three of the plurality of witness cameras; however, utilizing at least three cameras to triangulate the location of a ball is notoriously well known as evidenced by Jayaram (US 20230100572 A1), paragraph [0003], [0014]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Kohler with Jayaram and would have been motivated to do so to more accurately track the location of the ball.
2. Kohler and Jayaram disclose a system in accordance with claim 1, wherein the pinpointing of the location of the object of interest is accurate to within about 3 millimeters (as can be seen in Fig. 5B-5E, it appears it is within about 3 millimeters ), (the absolute location of the ball is determined), Kohler [0043].
5. Kohler and Jayaram disclose a system in accordance with claim 1, wherein the object of interest is a ball, Kohler [0043].
6-7. Kohler and Jayaram disclose the system in accordance with claim 5, wherein Kohler further discloses the pinpointed location of the ball is relative to a first down line and wherein the processor determines whether the ball has crossed at least partially over the first down line to determine whether a first down has been achieved, Kohler [0083], [0085].
8. Kohler and Jayaram disclose a system in accordance with claim 1, wherein the plural witness cameras comprise at least three witness cameras (110: Fig. 1), [0045].
9. Kohler and Jayaram disclose a system in accordance with claim 8, wherein the witness cameras are provided on both of either side of the field of play (110: Fig. 1), [0045].
10. Kohler and Jayaram disclose a system in accordance with claim 8, wherein the witness cameras comprise at least four cameras, with two on either side of the field of play (110: Fig. 1), [0045].
13. Kohler and Jayaram disclose a system in accordance with claim 1, wherein the plurality of witness cameras comprise more than three witness cameras; and wherein the processor selects the at least three of the plurality of witness cameras for triangulating the location of the object of interest from the plurality of witness cameras in response to a location of the object of interest in the field of play, Jayaram [0003].
14. Kohler and Jayaram disclose a system in accordance with claim 13, wherein the location of the object of interest in the field of play is determined be a sensor in the object of interest, (i.e. an RFID tag may be included on or in the football 50, and a signal therefrom detected to indicate the approximate coordinates of the football 50), Kohler [0049].
15. Kohler and Jayaram disclose a system in accordance with claim 1, wherein the object of interest is occluded from view in at least one of the plurality of witness cameras (i.e. with so many cameras being used in either Kohler’s or Jayaram’s system, it is implicit that at least one of the camera will have the object of interest being occluded from view), Jayaram [0003].
Claim(s) 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohler (US 2021/0133482 A1) and Jayaram (US 20230100572 A1) as applied above and further in view of Hill (US 2016/0198228 A1).
11-12. Kohler discloses a system in accordance with claim 1, but does not expressly disclose further comprising a second user interface to receive a second user input from a second remote operator, the second user input configured to provide animation for the broadcast related to movement, tracking or placement of the object of interest, the object of interest comprising a ball wherein the ball is shown on-screen or on a GUI as a glowing object or outline of an object. Hill disclose a user interface for a remote operator, the user input configured to provide animation for the broadcast related to movement, tracking or placement of a ball wherein the ball is shown on-screen or on a GUI as a glowing object or outline of an object [0061], [0089]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Kohler with Hill and would have been motivated to do so to allow broadcast to be tagged/annotated.
Filing of New or Amended Claims
The examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the original disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. See Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263, 191 USPQ at 97 (“[T]he PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). However, when filing an amendment an applicant should show support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims. See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 (“Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”). Please see MPEP 2163 (II) 3. (b)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SENG H LIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3301. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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, David Lewis can be reached on (571) 272-7673. 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.
/Seng H Lim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715