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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/13/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
35 USC § 112 Remarks
The examiner notes that claims 20-39 do not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as sufficient hardware structure has been provided.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rankin et al. (“Rankin”) (U.S. Patent No. 5,342,051).
In regards to claim 1, Rankin teaches a method comprising:
predicting future positions of a ball based on data from one or more sensors (See col. 4, li. 49-64); and
controlling a camera based on the predicted future positions of the ball (See col. 5, li. 15 – col. 6, li. 16), including using initial control signals upon launch of the ball (See col. 2, li. 41-56, col. 3, li. 23-39 and col. 4, li. 10-48 wherein the ball is tracked from an initial contact point with a golf club) and using additional control signals upon determination of a trajectory for the ball using the data from the one or more sensors (See col. 2, li. 41-56, col. 3, li. 23-39 and col. 4, li. 10-48 wherein the ball is tracked and the camera is accordingly moved to maintain imaging of the ball even after the initial hit), such that the camera stays on or ahead of the ball in flight along the trajectory (See col. 5, li. 35-55).
In regards to claim 20, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 1 by Rankin wherein the sensors, camera and processing apparatus are taught as seen in col. 3, li. 60 – col. 4, li. 9, and col. 4, li. 65 – col. 5, li. 14 in view of FIG. 2B.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2-10, 12, 15-19, 22-30, 32 and 35-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rankin et al. (“Rankin”) (U.S. Patent No. 5,342,051) in view of Tuxen et al. (“Tuxen”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2022/0284628).
It is to be noted that the information provided by Tuxen is also supported in the provision applications of 63/202,850, filed Jun 27, 2021, and 63/200,425, filed Mar 5, 2021.
In regards to claim 2, Rankin fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein the controlling comprises controlling the camera such that the camera stays on or ahead of the ball through an entirety of the trajectory of the ball, including one or more bounces of the ball, until the ball comes to a stop.
In a similar endeavor Tuxen teaches wherein the controlling comprises controlling the camera such that the camera stays on or ahead of the ball through an entirety of the trajectory of the ball, including one or more bounces of the ball, until the ball comes to a stop (See Abstract and ¶0068-0069 wherein orientation, zoom levels, focus and other parameters of the cameras are continuously controlled in order to track a ball, this is taken in view of 0103, 0264, 0344 wherein this continues even up until and after the ball bounces).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Tuxen into Rankin because it allows for a successful and visually pleasing broadcast of a golf even as described in ¶0003 which is labor-intensive if done manually by a human, and would thus vastly improve the overall process when done automatically by a capable system.
In regards to claim 3, Rankin fails to teach the method of claim 2, wherein the camera is a broadcast camera providing video image data, and the method comprises: overlaying a graphical representation for the ball onto the video image data, including a graphical representation of a predicted ball trajectory.
In a similar endeavor Tuxen teaches overlaying a graphical representation for the ball onto the video image data, including a graphical representation of a predicted ball trajectory (See ¶0117 and 0166).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Tuxen into Rankin because it allows for a successful and visually pleasing broadcast of a golf even as described in ¶0003 which is labor-intensive if done manually by a human, and would thus vastly improve the overall process when done automatically by a capable system.
In regards to claim 4, Rankin fails to teach the method of claim 3, wherein the overlaying comprises superimposing, on image data being broadcast, graphics at locations ahead of a current ball position, including graphics that show shot statistics information placed at specific points along the predicted ball trajectory.
In a similar endeavor Tuxen teaches wherein the overlaying comprises superimposing, on image data being broadcast, graphics at locations ahead of a current ball position (See FIG. 8A and 8B in view of ¶0117 and 0166 wherein the expected trajectory is overlayed over the image feed, this includes graphical information at locations ahead of a current ball position), including graphics that show shot statistics information placed at specific points along the predicted ball trajectory(See ¶0166 in view of FIG. 8A and 8B wherein additional information may be tracked and displayed over the image feed, such as ball speed, carry and curve, other information may also be presented as seen in ¶0043-0044, 0098, 0202 and 0239, as well as FIG. 12).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Tuxen into Rankin because it allows for a successful and visually pleasing broadcast of a golf even as described in ¶0003 which is labor-intensive if done manually by a human, and would thus vastly improve the overall process when done automatically by a capable system.
In regards to claim 5, Rankin fails to teach the method of claim 4, wherein the overlaying comprises updating location and information being shown for the graphics as the ball is in flight.
In a similar endeavor Tuxen teaches wherein the overlaying comprises updating location and information being shown for the graphics as the ball is in flight (See ¶0182 and 0202).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Tuxen into Rankin because it allows for a successful and visually pleasing broadcast of a golf even as described in ¶0003 which is labor-intensive if done manually by a human, and would thus vastly improve the overall process when done automatically by a capable system.
In regards to claim 6, Rankin fails to teach the method of claim 3, wherein the overlaying comprises superimposing, on image data being broadcast, a predicted maximum ball height adjacent to a predicted apex of the predicted ball trajectory.
In a similar endeavor Tuxen teaches wherein the overlaying comprises superimposing, on image data being broadcast, a predicted maximum ball height adjacent to a predicted apex of the predicted ball trajectory (See ¶0093 wherein the apex height may be overlaid as a numerical graphic, which itself is understood as the maximum vertical height a ball reaches during its flight, marking the peak of its trajectory as gravity pulls down).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Tuxen into Rankin because it allows for a successful and visually pleasing broadcast of a golf even as described in ¶0003 which is labor-intensive if done manually by a human, and would thus vastly improve the overall process when done automatically by a capable system.
In regards to claim 7, Rankin fails to teach the method of claim 3, wherein the overlaying comprises superimposing, on image data being broadcast, a predicted carry distance adjacent to a predicted first landing location.
In a similar endeavor Tuxen teaches wherein the overlaying comprises superimposing, on image data being broadcast, a predicted carry distance adjacent to a predicted first landing location (See ¶0043, 0091, 0093, 0100, 0117, 0166 and 0174).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Tuxen into Rankin because it allows for a successful and visually pleasing broadcast of a golf even as described in ¶0003 which is labor-intensive if done manually by a human, and would thus vastly improve the overall process when done automatically by a capable system.
In regards to claim 8, Rankin fails to teach the method of claim 3, wherein the overlaying comprises superimposing, on image data being broadcast, a predicted rollout distance adjacent to a predicted final resting location.
In a similar endeavor Tuxen teaches wherein the overlaying comprises superimposing, on image data being broadcast, a predicted rollout distance adjacent to a predicted final resting location (See ¶0041, 0043, 0078, 0102 and 0112).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Tuxen into Rankin because it allows for a successful and visually pleasing broadcast of a golf even as described in ¶0003 which is labor-intensive if done manually by a human, and would thus vastly improve the overall process when done automatically by a capable system.
In regards to claim 9, Rankin fails to teach teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the overlaying comprises superimposing, on image data being broadcast, predictive zones and/or ranges for the ball.
In a similar endeavor Tuxen teaches wherein the overlaying comprises superimposing, on image data being broadcast, predictive zones and/or ranges for the ball (See ¶0079, 0087, 0091, 0097, 0098, 0100 and 0149).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Tuxen into Rankin because it allows for a successful and visually pleasing broadcast of a golf even as described in ¶0003 which is labor-intensive if done manually by a human, and would thus vastly improve the overall process when done automatically by a capable system.
In regards to claim 10, Rankin fails to teach the method of claim 3, wherein the controlling comprises keeping the ball in frame for the camera, using processed image data from the camera, while the ball bounces and rolls.
In a similar endeavor Tuxen teaches wherein the controlling comprises keeping the ball in frame for the camera, using processed image data from the camera, while the ball bounces and rolls (See ¶0057, 0062, 0064, 0173 and 0041, this is taken in view of Rankin’s teachings of maintaining the ball within a frame by at least changing extrinsic parameters).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Tuxen into Rankin because it allows for a successful and visually pleasing broadcast of a golf even as described in ¶0003 which is labor-intensive if done manually by a human, and would thus vastly improve the overall process when done automatically by a capable system.
In regards to claim 11, Rankin teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the predicting comprises performing image processing on the video image data to supplement ball flight tracking with real-time data from the broadcast camera (See col. 5, li. 35 – col. 6, li. 16).
In regards to claim 12, Rankin fails to teach the method of claim 3, comprising using three-dimensional coordinates received from a ball locating system to ensure the broadcast camera has an initial view of a golfer before the launch.
In a similar endeavor Tuxen teaches comprising using three-dimensional coordinates received from a ball locating system to ensure the broadcast camera has an initial view of a golfer before the launch (See ¶0127, 0133-0135, 0150 and 0157).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Tuxen into Rankin because it allows for a successful and visually pleasing broadcast of a golf even as described in ¶0003 which is labor-intensive if done manually by a human, and would thus vastly improve the overall process when done automatically by a capable system.
In regards to claim 13, Rankin teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the controlling comprises controlling zoom for the camera to zoom in closer to the ball over time as a more accurate model of a path of the ball in three-dimensional space is iteratively produced using the data from the one or more sensors (See col. 5, li. 35 – col. 6, li. 16).
In regards to claim 15, Rankin fails to teach the method of claim 1, comprising: using classifications of objects and positions for the objects in a three-dimensional space to predict impacts and ball bounce amounts, wherein the classifications and the positions are provided by a trained machine learning algorithm.
In a similar endeavor Tuxen teaches comprising: using classifications of objects and positions for the objects in a three-dimensional space to predict impacts and ball bounce amounts (See ¶0273-0275, 0347, 0097, 0078, 0103, 0112, 0245 and 0264-0274 wherein the overall calculation and graphical representation of the ball along the full trajectory, including the bounce and roll, may be shown by the system), wherein the classifications and the positions are provided by a trained machine learning algorithm (See ¶0129, 0135wherein a convolutional neural network may be used).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Tuxen into Rankin because it allows for a successful and visually pleasing broadcast of a golf even as described in ¶0003 which is labor-intensive if done manually by a human, and would thus vastly improve the overall process when done automatically by a capable system.
In regards to claim 16, Rankin fails to teach the method of claim 1, comprising: tracking players on a field using one or more image tracking algorithms; and predicting an impact based on a predicted ball trajectory from the predicting and predictions of where the players are headed on the field from the one or more image tracking algorithms.
In a similar endeavor Tuxen teaches tracking players on a field using one or more image tracking algorithms (See ¶0126-0128 and 0150-0153 in view of 0135-0137, ); and
predicting an impact based on a predicted ball trajectory from the predicting and predictions of where the players are headed on the field from the one or more image tracking algorithms (See ¶0129, 0142, 0145, 0164, 0169 and 0176-0181 in view of ¶0050-00053, 0131-0133 and 0236).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Tuxen into Rankin because it allows for a successful and visually pleasing broadcast of a golf even as described in ¶0003 which is labor-intensive if done manually by a human, and would thus vastly improve the overall process when done automatically by a capable system.
In regards to claim 17, Rankin fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors comprise two cameras, and the method comprises linking output from the two cameras to form a stereo camera pair.
In a similar endeavor Tuxen teaches wherein the one or more sensors comprise two cameras, and the method comprises linking output from the two cameras to form a stereo camera pair (See ¶0216).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Tuxen into Rankin because it allows for a successful and visually pleasing broadcast of a golf even as described in ¶0003 which is labor-intensive if done manually by a human, and would thus vastly improve the overall process when done automatically by a capable system.
In regards to claim 18, Rankin fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein the controlling comprises determining the additional control signals for the camera in accordance with one or more splines produced based on the predicted future positions of the ball.
In a similar endeavor Tuxen teaches wherein the controlling comprises determining the additional control signals for the camera in accordance with one or more splines produced based on the predicted future positions of the ball (See ¶0234, 0243, 0261 and 0343 in view of future predicted positions of the ball as taught above by Tuxen).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Tuxen into Rankin because it allows for a successful and visually pleasing broadcast of a golf even as described in ¶0003 which is labor-intensive if done manually by a human, and would thus vastly improve the overall process when done automatically by a capable system.
In regards to claim 19, Rankin fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein the camera is a high resolution broadcast camera having a two-dimensional image frame, and the controlling comprises: performing slides along horizontal and vertical axes of the two-dimensional image frame, zooming into and out of the two-dimensional image frame; and transforming perspective for images from the high resolution broadcast camera to produce a pan-like effect within the two-dimensional image frame.
In a similar endeavor Tuxen teaches wherein the camera is a high resolution broadcast camera having a two-dimensional image frame (See ¶0063 in view of 0240 and 0257), and the controlling comprises:
performing slides along horizontal and vertical axes of the two-dimensional image frame (See ¶0115 and 0123);
zooming into and out of the two-dimensional image frame (See ¶0123, 0149, 0160 and 0183); and
transforming perspective for images from the high resolution broadcast camera to produce a pan-like effect within the two-dimensional image frame (See ¶0123, 0149, 0160 and 0183).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Tuxen into Rankin because it allows for a successful and visually pleasing broadcast of a golf even as described in ¶0003 which is labor-intensive if done manually by a human, and would thus vastly improve the overall process when done automatically by a capable system.
In regards to claims 22-33 and 35-39, the claims are rejected under the same basis as claims 2-13 and 15-19, respectively, by Rankin in view of Tuxen.
Claim(s) 14 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rankin et al. (“Rankin”) (U.S. Patent No. 5,342,051) in view of Tuxen et al. (“Tuxen”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2022/0284628) and Park (KR 10-2018-0050589).
The 103(a) rejections below are based on Korean Patent Application Publication No. 10-2018-0050589. The rejections rely on the machine translations of the Korean prior art, which were downloaded from the European Patent Office website Espacenet. These English translations are deemed to fully comply with the translation requirement of MPEP section 1207.02. See USPTO memorandum "Machine Translation of a Non-English Document Being Relied Upon by the Examiner in Support of a Rejection in an Examiner's Answer," located at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/20091117_mach_trans_memo.pdf. The English translation of the foreign patent documents is attached.
In regards to claim 14, Rankin fails to teach the method of claim 13, wherein the controlling comprises providing a zoom out for the camera as the ball approaches ground, and an amount of the zoom out is controlled based on a predicted amount of ball bounce.
Together, Tuxen and Park teach wherein the controlling comprises providing a zoom out for the camera as the ball approaches ground, and an amount of the zoom out is controlled based on a predicted amount of ball bounce (See ¶0057, 0068-0069, 0076 and 0123 of Tuxen in view of 0032 of Park).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Tuxen and Park into Rankin because it allows for a successful and visually pleasing broadcast of a golf even as described in ¶0003 which is labor-intensive if done manually by a human, and would thus vastly improve the overall process when done automatically by a capable system, also it allows for proper imaging of the landing area from the zoomed in view to the zoomed out view as seen in ¶0032.
In regards to claim 34, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 14 by Rankin in view of Tuxen and Park.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rankin et al. (“Rankin”) (U.S. Patent No. 5,342,051) in view of Tuxen et al. (“Tuxen”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2022/0284628) and Hugmark et al. (“Hugmark”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2023/0085842), in further view of Imes (U.S. PG Publication No. 2021/0383124).
In regards to claim 21, Rankin fails to teach the system of claim 20, wherein the one or more sensors comprise one or more stereo cameras with a wide field of view placed (i) at a tee of a golf course, (ii) at a first location along a fairway of the golf course, and/or (iii) at a green of the golf course, and the camera comprises a broadcast camera placed at a second location along the fairway of the golf course.
In a similar endeavor Hugmark teaches wherein the one or more sensors comprise one or more stereo cameras with a wide field of view placed (i) at a tee of a golf course, (ii) at a first location along a fairway of the golf course, and/or (iii) at a green of the golf course (See ¶0042, 0067 and 0093 in view of 0020, 0107 and FIG. 2A of Hugmark wherein the camera[s] 140 and/or 410 may be stereo cameras with a wide view of the golf course, especially as a stereo camera naturally provides a wider field of view than a singular camera as differential is provided between the two imaging units within a stereo camera).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Hugmark into Rankin because it allows for a reduction in overall complexity of a system with less necessary components as a wider field of view is covered if cameras may provide for a wider field of view.
In a similar endeavor Imes teaches the camera comprises a broadcast camera placed at a second location along the fairway of the golf course (See ¶0135).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Imes into Hugmark because it allows for the proper imaging along a golf course, whether in the different grass cuts such as the fairway, rough and fringe, or at the tee or in the green as described in at least ¶0135, thus allowing for proper tracking of a golf ball such that it may not get lost.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDEMIO NAVAS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1067. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, ~ 9 AM -6 PM.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
EDEMIO NAVAS JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2483
/EDEMIO NAVAS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483