DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 15 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 5 includes limitations directed towards 5. The system of claim 4, wherein the basketball backboard comprises a first layer and a second layer, the first layer comprises a protective layer and the display is coupled to the second layer. The closest art of record Caselli teaches the display; however, it is silent with regards to the first and second layer and the display coupled to the second layer. The prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not teach or suggest the above-identified limitations, and claim 5 is therefore allowed.
Claim 15 includes limitations directed towards 15. The system of claim 12, wherein the control unit is configured to: train the machine learning model to generate the data that (i) identifies the one or more users on a basketball court, (ii) identifies the basketball associated with the one of the one or more users, (iii) identifies the action performed by the one of the one or more users associated with the identified basketball, and (iv) generates characteristics of the action performed by the one of the one or more users, wherein the machine learning model is trained using images and/or video of users performing one or more basketball actions, the basketball actions comprising (i) dribbling a basketball, (ii) shooting the basketball from various location in relation to multiple housing, (iii) moving while dribbling the basketball, and (iv) adjusting body posture of the users with the basketball. The closest art of record Lee teaches the machine learning model but is silent with regards to the training of the machine learning model to generate the subclauses shown in claim 15. The prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not teach or suggest the above-identified limitations, and claim 15 is therefore allowed.
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 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)(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 1-2, 8-11, 16-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Klein (US 20080015061 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Klein teaches 1. A system comprising a basketball backboard, the system comprising: a device coupled to the basketball backboard and configured to generate data regarding results of a shot attempt by a user of the basketball backboard; See [0024+] referencing "The system embodiment includes a first sensor 102 to detect number of shots taken", a control unit configured to: receive the generated data from the device; See [0024+] referencing "The sensor measures and communicates a wearer's pace, performance, etc. Devices using similar technology can be employed as an optional third sensor, and can be configured to wirelessly communicate information to the portable console 101, whether the portable console 101 is an iPod.RTM., or some other device.", based on the received data, determine whether the shot attempt by the user was successful; and See [0024+] referencing "The system embodiment includes a first sensor 102 to detect number of shots taken, and a second sensor 103 to determine number of shots made.", provide output data representing whether the shot attempt was successful. See Fig. 2D which shows the output of the successful shot attempt on the display.
Regarding claim 2, Klein teaches 2. The system of claim 1, further comprising a display configured to display the output data representing whether the shot attempt was successful. See Fig. 2D.
Regarding claim 8, Klein teaches 8. The system of claim 1, further comprising a network interface coupled to the control unit, wherein the network interface is configured to connect the system to one or more additional systems over a network, transmit data captured from the system to the one or more additional systems, receive data captured from the one or more additional systems, and provide the received data to the control unit for display. See [0024+].
Regarding claim 9, Klein teaches 9. The system of claim 1, wherein the device comprises one or more imaging devices. See [0027+].
Regarding claim 10, Klein teaches 10. The system of claim 1, wherein the device comprises one or more sensors. See [0017+].
Regarding claim 11, Klein teaches 11. The system of claim 10, wherein the one or more sensors comprises one or more of LIDAR sensors, motion sensors, trip sensors, and accelerometers. See [0018+].
Regarding claim 16, Klein teaches 16. The system of claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to provide the output data representing whether the shot attempt was successful further comprises the control unit configured to provide the output data representing whether the shot attempt was successful to at least one of a display of the basketball backboard or a client device of the user. See Fig. 2D.
Regarding claim 17, Klein teaches 17. A computer implemented method comprising: generating, by a device coupled to a basketball backboard, data regarding results of a shot attempt by a user of the basketball backboard; See [0024+], receiving, by a control unit, the generated data from the device; See [0024+], based on the received data, determining whether the shot attempt by the user was successful; and See [0024+], providing output data representing whether the shot attempt was successful. See Fig. 2D.
Regarding claim 18, Klein teaches 18. The computer implemented method of claim 17, further comprising displaying, on a display, the output data representing whether the shot attempt was successful. See Fig. 2D.
Regarding claim 21, Klein teaches 21. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing software comprising instructions that are operable, when executed by one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising: generating, by a device coupled to a basketball backboard, data regarding results of a shot attempt by a user of the basketball backboard; See [0024+], receiving, by a control unit, the generated data from the device; See [0024+], based on the received data, determining whether the shot attempt by the user to the basketball backboard was successful; and See [0024+], providing output data representing whether the shot attempt was successful. See Fig. 2D.
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(a) 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.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
The notations noted below apply to all rejections: In as much structure set forth by the applicant in the claims, the device is capable of use in the intended manner if so desired (See MPEP 2112). It should be noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim limitations. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The intended use defined in the preamble and body of the claim breathes no life and meaning structurally different than that of the applied reference.
Claims 3-4, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein (US 20080015061 A1) in view of Caselli (US 5300920 A).
Regarding claim 3, Caselli teaches 3. The system of claim 2, wherein the basketball backboard houses the display. See 3:14+.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Klein with Caselli as the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is an indication of obviousness (See the supreme courts rationale (C)) The inclusion of the display on the backboard would make the viewing of the score more readily viewable to the user.
Regarding claim 4, Caselli teaches 4. The system of claim 3, wherein the device is coupled to the display. See Fig. 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Klein with Caselli as the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is an indication of obviousness (See the supreme courts rationale (C)) The inclusion of the display on the backboard would make the viewing of the score more readily viewable to the user.
Regarding claim 19, Caselli teaches 19. The computer implemented method of claim 18, wherein the basketball backboard houses the display. See 3:14+.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Klein with Caselli as the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is an indication of obviousness (See the supreme courts rationale (C)) The inclusion of the display on the backboard would make the viewing of the score more readily viewable to the user.
Regarding claim 20, Caselli teaches 20. The computer implemented method of claim 19, wherein the device is coupled to the display. See Fig. 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Klein with Caselli as the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is an indication of obviousness (See the supreme courts rationale (C)) The inclusion of the display on the backboard would make the viewing of the score more readily viewable to the user.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein (US 20080015061 A1) in view of Lee (US 11380100 B2).
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches 12. The system of claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to: provide the generated data to a machine learning model, wherein the machine learning model is configured to generate data (i) identifying one or more users in the generated data, (ii) identifying a basketball associated with one of the one or more users, (iii) identifying an action performed by the one of the one or more users associated with the identified basketball, and (iv) identifying characteristics of the action performed by the one of the one or more users; and provide one or more of the generated data from the machine learning model for display. See 6:6+ which clearly teaches the use of machine learning in a basketball analytic system. The use of this machine learning to carry out (i)-(iv) is considered obvious in view of the environment that the machine learning model is used in such as the basketball environment. A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily choose to analyze (i)-(iv) as these are common motions and subjects that occur in basketball and may be easily analyzed with a machine learning model.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Klein with Lee to perform real-time analysis of ball sport games. (See 6:6+).
Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches 13. The system of claim 12, wherein the action performed by the one of the one or more users comprises (i) performing a basketball shot, (ii) dribbling the basketball, and (iii) passing the basketball. See 6:6+ the disclosure clearly teaches machine learning and the analysis of ball sport games wherein the basketball shot, dribbling and passing is considered inclusive and/or obvious in view of the analysis of the ball sport games.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Klein with Lee to perform real-time analysis of ball sport games. (See 6:6+).
Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches 14. The system of claim 12, wherein the machine learning model is a convolutional neural network. See 6:6+ which teaches the convolutional neural network (CNN).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Klein with Lee to perform real-time analysis of ball sport games. (See 6:6+).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oswald US 5720485 A - Which teaches the protective layer on the backboard.
Baxter US 20160193518 A1 - Which teaches the score indications on the backboard.
Brody US 20210052961 - Which teaches the network and/or wireless interface and the display on the backboard.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY S VANDERVEEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0503. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11am - 7pm CST.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/JEFFREY S VANDERVEEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights