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 .
Procedural Summary
This is responsive to the claims filed 10/28/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Applicant’s IDS submission is acknowledged and provided herewith.
The Drawings filed on 10/28/2024 are noted.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, 10-12, 16 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marty (US 2013/0095961) in view of Chen (US 2017/0213087).
Marty discloses a computing device having a camera, (Fig. 5c, system 100 includes a camera 201 and wheels 304); receiving a training video of a player from the camera on the mobile computing device, (e.g., ¶¶ 12, 20, recording video of a player conducting a basketball drill); superimposing the training video with a visual cue for a cue, (Fig. 10, ¶¶ 141, 175, video camera 724 {or video camera 201 of Fig. 5c} records a basketball shooting drill, wherein the recorded video is superimposed by display 716 showing a time left {e.g., 10 seconds, a visual cue, ¶ 68} and a score for each player); determining whether the player has responded to the visual cue by extracting a body posture flow of the player, (Id., wherein the shooting drill is of a predetermined time, e.g., the instant the drill begins, the display 716 shows the time remaining in seconds, and a second time instant includes when the drill ends), and in response to determining that the player has responded to the visual cue, generating a feedback to the player, (e.g., the player responds to the time left display by launching basketballs and attempting to score goals, the score shown on the display {“quality score”} is the feedback, and/or the generated trajectory information {Fig. 9B, 608} is the feedback.) Note that Marty facilitates players’ competing against other players’ past scores within the time period, (¶ 176, hence showing difficultly levels, e.g., choosing to compete against players who scored more baskets than other players).
Marty discloses the invention substantially but does not make explicit, wherein the body posture flow is extracted from the training video by performing a computer vision algorithm on one or more frames of the training video. However, in a related invention, Chen shows a smartphone-based game analysis system, (Abstract, Fig. 1), that applies frame analysis algorithms to extract player posture data, (e.g., Fig. 29, ¶¶ 110, 205). It would have therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to apply Chen’s system and posture extraction algorithms in Marty’s system for several reasons, including 1) making Marty’s device easier to transport, e.g., replacing Marty’s system 100 of Fig. 5c with Chen’s smartphone and 2) increasing feedback accuracy.
Claims 6 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marty (US 2013/0095961) in view of Chen (US 2017/0213087) as applied to Claim 1, in view of Hildreth (US 2018/0189971).
Marty in view of Chen teaches the invention substantially but does not show using a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) that has been trained using prior videos, to extract player posture flow data. However, in a related invention, Hildreth teaches a game analysis system (¶ 3) that uses a deep learning neural networks to map images, objects and obstacles to 3D, (¶ 131), wherein the neural network is trained using prior examples, (¶170.) It would have therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to incorporate the neural network suggested by Hildreth into the system of Marty and Cohen, for several reasons including increasing feedback accuracy.
Claims 7 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marty (US 2013/0095961) in view of Chen (US 2017/0213087) as applied to Claim 1, and Claim 12, respectively, in view of Marty (US 2018/0322337, hereafter “Marty ‘337”).
Marty in view of Chen teaches the invention substantially but does not show that the training is for a dribbling activity, with the statistic being dribbling speed, wherein statistics include historical statistics from training sessions. However, in a related invention, Marty ‘337 shows a training system designing for improving dribbling skills wherein player historical statistics are maintained, (e.g., Marty ‘337, Abstract, ¶¶ 14, 116, 119.) It would have therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to adapt the system of Marty and Chen to also record and improve users’ dribbling techniques, as suggested by Marty ‘337 for the purpose of providing more comprehensive training.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No.: 10,600,334. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims substantially show the pending claims:
Regarding Claims 1-5: See Patented Claims 1-5, respectively.
Regarding Claim 6: See Patented Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 7: See Patented Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 8: See Patented Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 9: See Patented Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 10: See Patented Claim 12.
Regarding Claim 11: See Patented Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 12: See Patented Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 13: See Patented Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 14: See Patented Claim 16.
Regarding Claim 15: See Patented Claim 17.
Regarding Claim 16: See Patented Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 17: See Patented Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 18: See Patented Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 19: See Patented Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 20: See Patented Claim 19.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 8, 9, 13-15, 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: While Marty shows a superimposed visual cue on a display (Fig. 10, 716, ¶ 68, display updated with new data), Marty’s visual cue is not superimposed onto the training video as required by the dependent claims, for example as a symbol; nor is this visual cue amenable to being “virtually touched” by the player per the claims. Similarly, Marty fails to render obvious limitations of the other dependent claims including a wait time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMKAR A DEODHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1647. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, generally 9am-5:30 pm.
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 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/OMKAR A DEODHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights