DETAILED ACTION
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 limitations are:
“a calculation configured to …” and
“a presentation control unit configured to …” in claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are 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(s) 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(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 “dataset” has no antecedent basis to specification.
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)(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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Daga (US 12,154,447).
As to claims 1 and 18-20, Daga discloses an information processing device comprising:
a calculation unit (fig. 1, remote server 106) 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); and
a presentation control unit (fig. 1, computing device 116, user interface 118) to:
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, and
execute first information presentation (fig. 23B, display LinearAccX analysis chart) the selected first input variable, wherein the calculation unit is to:
calculate the contribution of the first input variable to the focused variable (fig. 14, calculate LinearAccX to obtain shot motion result) based on a dataset (fig. 14, multiple samples 1~40) that satisfies a user-specified condition (fig. 14, such as 10 samples), and
recalculate the contribution based on a change in the user-specified condition (fig. 14, such as continue with 20 samples), wherein the dataset comprises data values of the plurality of input variables that satisfy the user-specified conditions (fig. 14, recalculate LinearAccX for each sample of cricket shot motion).
As to claim 2, Daga discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the presentation unit performs 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 only LinearAccY is contributing, e.g., LinearAccX/LinearAccZ are not contributing) to the focused variable.
As to claim 6, Daga discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the user-specified condition includes a condition defining a subset of the dataset (fig. 15, such as 32 samples) based on
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 a calculation result (fig. 14, such as LinearAccY has high contribution at 29 samples) by the calculation unit.
As to claim 8, Daga discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the chart includes representing the first input variable and the focused variable (fig. 14, LinearAccX and cricket shot motion in number of samples).
As to claim 9, Daga discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the calculation unit 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 calculation unit 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 presentation control unit 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, change 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 contribution calculated by the calculation unit (figs. 14-15, change display chart).
As to claim 13, Daga discloses the device of claim 1, wherein
the sports competition is baseball (fig. 6, cricket; 7:20-24, baseball), and
the presentation control unit is to display data (fig. 23B, display chart) corresponding to the dataset (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 presentation control unit is to execute control to display a part of the dataset (fig. 23B, display different sample numbers) in an order based on the contribution calculated by the calculation unit.
As to claim 15, Daga discloses the device of claim 14, wherein the presentation control unit is to set the first input variable (fig. 23B, LinearAccX) to be a target of the calculation of the contribution (fig. 23B, leg pull) by the calculation unit, 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 presentation control unit is to set a display content
As to claim 17, Daga discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the sports competition is baseball (fig. 6, cricket; 7:20-24, baseball).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are not deemed to be persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose “calculate the contribution of the first input variable to the focused variable based on a dataset that satisfies one or more user-specified conditions, and recalculate the contribution based on a change in the one or more user specified conditions, wherein the dataset comprises data values of the plurality of input variables that satisfy the one or more user-specified conditions” (pp.12-13).
Daga discloses a calculation of cricket shot motion in linear acceleration X, Y and Z for display as shown in fig. 14. The chart receives input variables (such as X, Y, Z for acceleration calculations) from captured cricket shot, and focused on shot motion (fig. 14) or ball impact (fig. 15). The continuing sampling of 1 through 40 samples defines the dataset with corresponding recalculation results.
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 in three months from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filled 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 of the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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