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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7 and 9-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9-11, 13, 13, 14, 15, 1-3, 4, 4, 6-8, 16, 16 and 18 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,290,727 in view of Cavallaro (pub. no. 20030171169). The respective claims of the ‘727 patent would anticipate the respective instant claims but do not explicitly disclose determining the location of home plate. Cavallaro however, teaches a strike determination system that discloses determining the location of home plate (“FIG. 3 is a flowchart describing the process for setting the boundaries of the strike zone. Prior to the game, the physical dimensions of the baseball diamond (including home plate) are measured (step 202). A three dimensional coordinate system is defined with the origin of the coordinate system at the comer of home plate. This three dimensional coordinate system is used for tracking the baseball, the strike zone and various edges (discussed below). The measurements for the diamond are made in this coordinate system.
The system creates three parallel lines in the three dimensional coordinate system (step 206). Each of the three lines is at a different height. The three dimensional coordinates of the three lines are converted to two dimensional positions in the video from the center field sensor using a transformation matrix (see step 204) based on the orientation and location of the center field sensor (step 208). The converted lines are then projected on the video from the center field sensor. Sliders on a GUI from the tracking computer can be moved to adjust the positions of the lines (step 210). There is one slider for each line. The Operator moves the sliders so that the bottom line is at the bottom of the batter's feet, the middle line passes through the hollow of the back of the batter's knee and the top line passes through the batter's belt buckle. As the batter moves, the operator can move the three sliders. An operator can also move a joystick. This joystick will adjust the top line, the belt buckle line. When the belt buckle line moves in response to the joystick, the knee line also moves to maintain the ratio of spacing between the lines. During most games, the operator uses the joy stick. The system can also operate with separate joysticks for the belt and knee line. When a line is moved, the tracking computer changes the three dimensional location of the appropriate line(s). Once a three dimensional position of a line is changed, the new three dimensional position is transformed to a new two dimensional position in the video and the line is moved in the video accordingly.
The system calculates the dimensions of the strike zone as follows (step 212). The four sides of the three dimensional box representing the strike zone are defined by the dimensions of home plate. The bottom of the strike zone is set to at the back of the hollow of the batter's knee. This corresponds to the middle line of the three lines. The top of the strike zone corresponds to a position 21/2 diameters of a baseball above the batter's belt buckle (the top line)”, [0023] – [0025]).
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Here both the ‘727 claims and Cavallaro are directed to systems that implement strike determination. To locate home plate and associate it with a 3d coordinate system as taught by Cavallaro would be to combine a prior art element according to a known method to yield a predictable result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ‘727 patent to implement the 3d coordinate system including home plate of Cavallaro. To do so would facilitate strike determination using well known 3d collision algorithms thereby reducing development time.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,115,429 in view of Cavallaro (pub. no. 20030171169). The respective claims of the ‘429 patent would anticipate the respective instant claims but do not explicitly disclose determining the location of home plate. Cavallaro however, teaches a strike determination system that discloses determining the location of home plate ([0023] – [0025]).
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Here both the ‘429 claims and Cavallaro are directed to systems that implement strike determination. To locate home plate and associate it with a 3d coordinate system as taught by Cavallaro would be to combine a prior art element according to a known method to yield a predictable result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ‘429 patent to implement the 3d coordinate system including home plate of Cavallaro. To do so would facilitate strike determination using well known 3d collision algorithms thereby reducing development time.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-12 and 14-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-7, 8-11 and 13-18 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11,951,373 in view of Cavallaro (pub. no. 20030171169). The respective claims of the ‘373 patent would anticipate the respective instant claims but do not explicitly disclose determining the location of home plate. Cavallaro however, teaches a strike determination system that discloses determining the location of home plate ([0023] – [0025]).
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Here both the ‘373 claims and Cavallaro are directed to systems that implement strike determination. To locate home plate and associate it with a 3d coordinate system as taught by Cavallaro would be to combine a prior art element according to a known method to yield a predictable result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ‘373 patent to implement the 3d coordinate system including home plate of Cavallaro. To do so would facilitate strike determination using well known 3d collision algorithms thereby reducing development time.
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.
Claims 1-20 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
Claims 1, 9 and 17 recite “determining a location of a strike zone based on a height of a batter” but the specification does not describe such a determination. Paragraph [0083] of the specification recites determining a strike zone based on the position of back of knee and belt buckle in a image of the batter. This is not the same as “a height of a batter” as it is two different positions that are not easily determined from the height of the batter which is customarily the height of the head while standing upright. The specification does not provide a custom definition of “a height of the batter”.
Claims 1, 9 and 17 also recite “receiving … images of the ball from one or more cameras”. However, paragraph [0058] of the specification recite “While four cameras 160 are depicted, more or fewer than four cameras 160 can alternatively be used, so long as there are at least two cameras 160” which is not supportive of “one or more cameras.
The dependent claims inherit these issues from their respective parent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Applicant is directed to the attached “Notice of References Cited” for additional relevant prior art. The Examiner respectfully requests the Applicant to fully review each reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE STEFAN GALKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1386. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-9 & 12-5.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
/LAWRENCE S GALKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights