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 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim(s) 1 and 16 held to claim an abstract idea, and is/are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The rationale for this finding is explained below:
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “tracking athletic movement for accurate competitive scoring in martial arts.”
The limitations of “providing a nine-axis inertial measurement unit comprising a three axis magnetometer, a three-axis accelerometer and a three-axis gyroscope; attaching a sensor to said unit; using said three-axis accelerometer measures directional acceleration of an athlete's movement; using said three axis-gyroscope measures rotational motion of an athlete's movement; and using said three axis-magnetometer measures rotational motion of an athlete's movement” 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 “a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processor” language, “providing and using” in the context of this claim encompasses tracking athletic movement for accurate competitive scoring in martial arts. 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. Furthermore, the method claim fails to recite a “machine” that can perform the recited method steps in the body of the claim.
The 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 element of using a processor to perform both the ranking and determining steps 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.
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(s) 1-5, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bentley et al (US .
As per claim 1, Bentley et al disclose a motion tracking system for validating an athlete's movement technique to determine an accurate competitive scoring ([0036], lines 1-4), said system with a nine-axis inertial measurement unit comprising: a three axis accelerometer to measure the directional acceleration of an athlete's movement a three axis-gyroscope to measure the rotational motion of an athlete's movement a three axis-magnetometer to measure change in orientation and additional rotational motion of an athlete's movement ([0036]; lines 39-44); and at least one sensor attached to said three-axis accelerometer [0005]. Bentley et al do not explicitly disclose a three-axis accelerometer/gyroscope/magnetometer but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize a three-axis accelerometer/gyroscope/magnetometer as claimed because it would provide the benefit of having an acceleration/rotation perpendicular to the plane instead of just vertical and horizontal acceleration/rotation.
As per claim 2, Bentley et al disclose the system of claim 1 wherein at least one sensor is selected from the group consisting of an impact sensor, proximity sensor, magnetic proximity sensor, metal detector proximity sensor, three-axis magnetic compass and combinations thereof [0019].
As per claim 3, Bentley et al disclose the system of claim 1 wherein the athlete's movement refers to a fighter's kicking and punching technique [0020].
As per claim 4, Bentley et al disclose the system of claim 1 wherein said nine-axis inertial measurement unit is located in an article selected from a group consisting of an athlete's uniform, sporting equipment, protective equipment, clothing, wearable sports equipment, foot gear, gloves and combinations thereof [0021].
As per claim 5, Bentley et al disclose the system of claim 1wherein said sensor is located in an article selected from a group consisting of an athlete's uniform, sporting equipment, protective equipment, clothing, wearable sports equipment, foot gear, gloves and combinations thereof [0021].
As per claim 16, Bentley et al disclose a method for tracking athletic movement for accurate competitive scoring in martial arts, said method comprises: providing a nine-axis inertial measurement unit comprising a three axis magnetometer, a three-axis accelerometer and a three-axis gyroscope; attaching a sensor to said unit ([0036]; lines 39-44); using said three-axis accelerometer measures directional acceleration of an athlete's movement [0005]; using said three axis-gyroscope measures rotational motion of an athlete's movement; and using said three axis-magnetometer measures rotational motion of an athlete's movement ([0036]; lines 39-44). Bentley et al do not explicitly disclose a three-axis accelerometer/gyroscope/magnetometer but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize a three-axis accelerometer/gyroscope/magnetometer as claimed because it would provide the benefit of having an acceleration/rotation perpendicular to the plane instead of just vertical and horizontal acceleration/rotation.
As per claim 17, Bentley et al disclose the method of claim 16 further comprises the step of: attaching said nine-axis inertial measurement unit and said sensor in an article, said article is selected from the group consisting of an athlete's uniform, sporting equipment, protective equipment, clothing, wearable sports equipment, foot gear, gloves and combinations thereof [0021].
No art rejection is found for claims 6-15 and 18-20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See references cited on PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD LANEAU whose telephone number is (571)272-6784. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-4:30 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, David Lewis can be reached at 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.
/Ronald Laneau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715