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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been in the instant Application on 2/27/2025.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/19/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 2, 4, 6-16, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2018/0001141 (Curry).
Regarding claim 2, Curry discloses a system for strike localization (abstract, see FIG. 1 below), comprising:
a punching bag 4 defining an outer non-planar surface adapted to receive strikes of a user 1 (see FIG. 1 below);
a set of sensors 3,3 disposed away from a striking area of the outer non-planar surface (360° HD video cameras 3 are placed on every top corner of the octagon and boxing ring - paras 0019-0020, FIGS. 1-5);
and one or more processors configured to:
perform contactless localization of an incoming strike of the user on the outer non-planar surface of the punching bag, including determining a position of a point of impact of the incoming strike on the punching bag based at least in part on data provided by at least one sensor in the set of sensors (The sensors simultaneously send a wireless signal back to the motion interactive video recording and scanning mechanism 2, which then sends the received statistical data via an app to a smartphone 6 or a fitness system 7 to provide a detailed reading of the number of strikes thrown and landed by fighter 1, as well as a measurement of the speed and power of each strike landed on smart punching bag 4 in real time - para 0020; the system processes all the statistical data - para 25).
PNG
media_image1.png
728
777
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Curry teaches the system of claim 2, and further discloses wherein the at least one sensor 3 is disposed on a mounting arm (cameras 3 are placed on every top corner of the octagon and boxing ring, which the corners can each be interpreted as a mounting arm - para 0020, FIGS. 1-5).
Regarding claim 6, Curry teaches the system of claim 2, and further discloses wherein performing the contactless localization comprises fusing data from at least two different sensors in the set of sensors (plurality of cameras 3 - para 0020, FIGS. 1-5).
Regarding claim 7, Curry teaches the system of claim 6, and further discloses wherein the fusing is performed using machine learning-based data fusion (The mechanism and system uses artificial intelligence software to count and decipher the number of strikes thrown and landed and decipher the number of strikes thrown and landed, and the speed and power of each strike - para 0020).
Regarding claim 8, Curry teaches the system of claim 2, and further discloses wherein determining the position of the point of impact of the incoming strike comprises determining a candidate point of impact of the incoming strike on the outer non-planar surface of the punching bag (para 0020).
Regarding claim 9, Curry teaches the system of claim 8, and further discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine a candidate trajectory of the incoming strike, and wherein the candidate point of impact is identified based at least in part on the candidate trajectory (para 0020).
Regarding claim 10, Curry teaches the system of claim 8, and further discloses wherein the candidate point of impact of the incoming strike is identified before the incoming strike of the user enters in physical contact with the punching bag (para 0020).
Regarding claim 11, Curry teaches the system of claim 10, and further discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine at least one of a speed of the incoming strike or an acceleration of the incoming strike before the incoming strike physically interacts with the punching bag (speed of strike - para 0020).
Regarding claim 12, Curry teaches the system of claim 8, and further discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine at least one exercise performance metric based at least in part on the candidate point of impact of the incoming strike (speed and power of each strike - para 0020).
Regarding claim 13, Curry teaches the system of claim 12, and further discloses wherein the at least one exercise performance metric is determined prior to the incoming strike physically interacting with the punching bag (para 0020).
Regarding claim 14, Curry teaches the system of claim 8, and further discloses wherein based at least in part on the incoming strike having effectively entered in contact with the punching bag, the one or more processors are further configured to correct information pertaining to the candidate point of impact of the incoming strike based at least in part on information pertaining to an actual point of impact of a corresponding strike (para 0020).
Regarding claim 15, Curry teaches the system of claim 2, and further discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine a precision of the incoming strike based at least in part on the localization (precision of the fighter’s movements - paras 0019-0020).
Regarding claim 16, Curry teaches the system of claim 15, and further discloses wherein the precision of the incoming strike is determined at least in part by comparing the incoming strike with a localization of an item on the punching bag (para 0020).
Regarding claim 19, Curry teaches the system of claim 2, and further discloses wherein the incoming strike is localized at least in part by performing object detection using the at least one sensor (optical character recognition - paras 0019-0020).
Regarding claim 20, Curry teaches the system of claim 19, and further discloses wherein performing the object detection includes limiting data generation to objects within a zone of interest (optical character recognition zone within the octagon and boxing ring - paras 0019-0020).
Regarding claim 21, Curry teaches the system of claim 2, and further discloses wherein a setting characteristic of the at least one sensor is determined based at least in part on at least one of an input precision criterion, a three-dimensional (3D) geometry of the outer non-planar surface, or electromechanical characteristics of the at least one sensor (video cameras detect 3D geometry with infrared emitters, image sensors, and optical character recognition - paras 0019-0020).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curry in view of US 11,980,803 (Koren).
Regarding claim 3, Curry teaches the system of claim 2, but Curry does not disclose wherein the at least one sensor comprises a time-of-flight sensor.
Koren teaches a training device 10 that detects (e.g., using one or more time of flight sensors) whether the user performed an action including throwing a punch (Col 2:46-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Curry’s invention with time of flight sensor(s) as taught by Koren in order to allow the system to sense the proximity of an object (e.g., a user training with the device) and/or measure the distance of the object from the sensor so that one or more actions performed by the user can be sensed (Col 4:1-18).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curry in view of US 2011/0172060 (Morales et al., hereinafter “Morales”).
Regarding claims 17-18, Curry teaches the system of claim 16, but Curry does not disclose an image projecting device, and wherein the item is projected on the punching bag by the image projecting device (as in claim 17), wherein content projected on the punching bag by the image projecting device is dynamically adjusted based at least in part on the determined precision (as in claim 18).
Morales teaches a system having an image projecting device (audio-visual dome 140 - para 0032, FIG. 1), and wherein the item is projected on the punching bag by the image projecting device (one or more illuminators 146 configured to externally project visual image(s) onto target 110 for user 190 to strike - para 0037, FIG. 1), wherein content projected on the punching bag by the image projecting device is dynamically adjusted based at least in part on the determined precision (projected video images may also be presented as hit feedback such as color changes and may indicate on the surface of impact target 110 impact forces and location of hits generated by user 190 as hit achievement or failure - para 0037, FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Curry’s invention with the impact projecting device as taught by Morales in order to provide visual cues to direct user towards one or more strikes zones on target (Morales - para 0035).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm Eastern.
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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at 571-272-4966. 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.
/Joshua Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights