DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The claim terminology “a central processing unit” has no proper antecedent basis to specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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), 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 is:
“a central processing unit (CPU) configured to …” The corresponding structure is limited to calculation unit 21 and presentation control unit 22 as disclosed in fig. 2.
Because the claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it is 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daga (US 12,154,447) in view of Omid-Zohoor (US 11,673,024).
As to claims 1 and 18-20, Daga discloses an information processing device (fig. 1, system 100) comprising:
a central processing CPU (fig. 1, remote server 106; fig. 1, computing device 116, user interface 118) to:
calculate a contribution of a first input variable (fig. 14, LinearAccX as a contribution for cricket shot motion) to a second input variable (fig. 14, cricket shot motion) selected among a plurality of input variables (fig. 14, shot motion; fig. 15, ball impact; fig. 23B, leg pull, etc.),
wherein the plurality of input variables represent measurable attributes associated with a sport competition (fig. 6, cricket; 7:20-24, baseball);
select the first input variable (fig. 23B, LinearAccX) based on the calculated contribution and a focused variable (fig. 14, shot motion; fig. 15, ball impact; fig. 23B, leg pull) selected among the plurality of input variables;
execute first information presentation (fig. 23B, display LinearAccX analysis chart) the selected first input variable;
calculate the contribution of the first input variable to the focused variable (fig. 14, calculate LinearAccX to obtain shot motion result) based on a data set (fig. 14, multiple samples 1~40).
Omid-Zohoor discloses calculate the contribution based on a data set (fig. 10A, x-speed, y-speed, z-speed) satisfies a user-specified condition (fig. 11, such as shoulders/hips rotation, flexion, side bend; figs. 42-51, different conditions); and
recalculate (fig. 15, line graph of motions; 14:31-34) the contribution based on a change (fig. 15, time vs. amplitude of rotational velocities of hips/shoulders/hands) in the user-specified condition,
wherein the data set comprises data values of the plurality of input variables that satisfy the user-specified conditions (figs. 42-51, reports with different conditions), and
the user-specified conditions include:
a condition (fig. 42, such as impact, top, address) on a category (fig. 42, swing characteristics 4200) of one input variable (fig. 42, swing #1) among the plurality of input variables (fig. 42, swings 1~5), or
Daga and Omid-Zohoor are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in analyzing athlete’s motions. Before the time of the filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of Daga and Omid-Zohoor before him or her to modify performance calculation of Daga to include the user specified conditions of Omid-Zohoor, thereafter each category of performance is selected and calculated. The suggestion and/or motivation for doing so would be obtaining the advantage of improved motion monitoring and analysis with real time feedback as suggested by Omid-Zohoor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Daga with Omid-Zohoor to obtain the invention as specified in the instant application claims.
As to claim 2, Daga discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the CPU to execute control to cause second information presentation (fig. 23C, LinearAccY analysis chart) indicating a contribution of each of the plurality of input variables to the focused variable (fig. 23C, LinearAccY contribution to the leg pull).
As to claim 3, Daga discloses the device of claim 2, wherein the second information presentation includes a display in which a level (fig. 23C, display LinearAccy/Sample Number in line chart) of the contribution of each of the plurality of input variables to the focused variable is represented.
As to claim 4, Daga discloses the device of claim 2, wherein the second information presentation includes a display indicating a degree of relevance (fig. 23C, display LinearAccy/Sample Number in line chart) between each of the plurality of input variables and the focused variable.
As to claim 5, Daga discloses the device of claim 2, wherein the second information presentation includes a display of an input variable among the plurality of input variables determined not to contribute (fig. 23C, display LinearAccY; LinearAccX/LinearAccZ are not contributing) to the focused variable.
As to claim 7, Daga discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the first information presentation includes a chart (fig. 14, linear acceleration chart) indicating a relationship between the first input variable and the focused variable, and the first input variable has a highest contribution to the focused variable based on the calculated condition (fig. 14, such as LinearAccY has high contribution at 29 samples).
As to claim 8, Daga discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the chart includes
As to claim 9, Daga discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the CPU is to estimate a causal relationship (26:62-65, estimated rate of change) between the plurality of input variables, and calculate the contribution based on the estimated causal relationship (15:58-60, estimated parameters).
As to claim 10, Daga discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the CPU is to estimate the contribution based on a machine learning model (fig. 1, by machine learning module 120).
As to claim 11, Daga discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the CPU is to: receive a change operation (fig. 14, cricket shot motion; fig. 15, ball impact) for the focused variable or the first input variable in the first information presentation, and execute display update control of the first information presentation based on to the received change operation (figs. 14-15, display chart).
As to claim 12, Daga discloses the device of claim 11, wherein the change operation is enabled by selection from a menu for an input field of the focused variable or the first input variable on a screen, and menu items sorted in order of the calculated contribution (figs. 14-15, change display chart).
As to claim 13, Daga discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the sports competition is baseball (7:20-24, baseball), and the CPU is to display data (fig. 23B, display chart) corresponding to the data set (fig. 23B, sample numbers) for each event (fig. 6, pitch) associated with the sport competition that satisfies the user-specified conditions (fig. 14, user selected sample numbers).
As to claim 14, Daga discloses the device of claim 13, wherein the CPU is to execute control to display a part of the data set (fig. 23B, display different sample numbers) in an order based on the calculated contribution.
As to claim 15, Daga discloses the device of claim 14, wherein the CPU is to set the first input variable (fig. 23B, LinearAccX) to be a target of the calculation of the contribution (fig. 23B, leg pull), based on a user selection operation (fig. 19, view; figs. 23B/23C, select to view LinearAccX/LinearAccY of leg pull).
As to claim 16, Daga discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the CPU set a display content of the first information presentation based on the focused variable (fig. 23B, chart displayed).
As to claim 17, Daga discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the sports competition is baseball (7:20-24, baseball).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner Cheng-Yuan Tseng whose telephone number is (571)272-9772, and fax number is (571)273-9772. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 09:00 to 17:30 Eastern Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alicia Harrington can be reached on (571)272-2330. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866)217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800)786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)272-1000.
/CHENG YUAN TSENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights