DETAILED ACTION
1. This is the first action on the merits relating to U.S. Application Serial No. 19/170,205 filed on April 4, 2025. Currently claims 1-20 remain in the examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
3. Applicant’s claiming benefit of US provisional application is acknowledged.
Drawings
4. Drawings originally filed on April 4, 2025 are approved.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0056125 A1 to Marty et al. (cited by Applicant as US 11,896,884 B2, hereinafter “Marty”) in view of US 12,390,713 B1 to Joseph (hereinafter “Joseph”).
Regarding claims 1, 16 and 17, Marty discloses a system and the method relating to the tracking of the performance of a player (see abstract) comprising keeping track of shooting parameters for a shooter (see paragraph 0022); evaluating the player’s performance (see paragraphs 0019 and thereafter); and based on the evaluation, a recommendation can be made (see paragraph 0079). Player’s shooting is a work out signature in claim 1, and current workout may be compared to the past workout (see paragraph 0075 and thereafter). And the system provides a feedback (see paragraphs 0046 and 0059) of the workout.
Marty, however, fails to disclose or suggest that the method includes a ball delivery system.
Joseph discloses a basketball practice system 100 (see abstract, figure 1A, col. 1, lines 23+) with basketball return system 108/111 to collect the basketball (col. 7, lines 37+).
In view of Joseph’s disclosure, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to employe well-known basketball return/delivery system to the teachings of Marty in order to provide the balls to the player/shooter in an efficient manner, and improve overall practice regime.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 18, and 19, Marty keeps track of shooting parameters for a player (see paragraphs 0075 and thereafter and paragraph 0105) for comparison and evaluation.
Regarding claim 4, Joseph’s launching machine 100 is comprised of one or more audio devices 136 (See Joseph, col. 8, lines 66+) which may be microphones and/or speakers.
Regarding claim 5, audio devices are used in evaluating performance of the user (See Joseph, col. 9, lines 7+).
Regarding claim 6, the system provides results which indicates player’s improvement (see paragraphs 0081 and 0082).
Regarding claim 7, The system is comprised of various sensors (see paragraph 0034) which are fed into the processing element 116 for analysis, which can be interpreted as machine-learning (see paragraphs 0034 and 0040).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, physical information is input into a computer 202 via sensors 212 (see figure 2) which are cameras, and camera captious player’s motion and other information (see paragraph 0040).
Regarding claim 10, the system 100 analyzes motions of a shooter and defender (see paragraph 0038). And the system 100 determines if the shooter is using proper mechanics, which is based upon some machine-learning.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the shooter 112 may wear one or more sensor (RFID tag) to provide wearer’s information to the system (see paragraph 0053).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, frame data show images of the ball was it leaves the shooter’s hand – feature of a shot of the user (see paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 15, the cameras 118 in the machine vision system record the shooting – workout signature (see paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 20, Marty uses various software related to components, for example, pattern recognition software (see paragraph 0034) and analysis software 208 (see paragraphs 0041, 0042, and 0095 and thereafter) for performing the method of recited in claim 1.
Conclusion
The pertinent prior arts made of record but not relied are listed in the attached form PTO-892. These are considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Applicant is respectfully suggested to carefully review these references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ahshik Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-2393. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday thru Friday. Examiner’s fax phone number is (571)273-2393.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Thomas Pham, can be reached on (571)272-3689. The fax phone number for this Group is (571)273-8300.
Communications via Internet e-mail regarding this application, other than those under 35 U.S.C. 132 or which otherwise require a signature, may be used by the applicant and should be addressed to [ahshik.kim@uspto.gov].
PTO employees do not engage in Internet communications where there exists a possibility that sensitive information could be identified or exchanged unless the record includes a properly signed express waiver of the confidentiality requirements of 35 U.S.C. 122. This is more clearly set forth in the Interim Internet Usage Policy published in the Official Gazette of the Patent and Trademark on February 25, 1997 at 1195 OG 89.
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.
/AHSHIK KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
August 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights