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 .
Detailed Action
This Office Action is made in reply to Application 19/237,075 filed 13 June 2025. As originally filed, Claims 1 – 15 are presented for examination.
Compact Prosecution
Examiner contacted applicant’s representative, Donghee Kang, to propose an examiner’s amendment to overcome the rejections under 35 USC § 112 and add limitations from objected dependent claims that would place the independent claims in condition for allowance. Applicant’s representative has not responded.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 - 7, 9 - 11 and 13 – 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if all the current rejections for the claims were overcome and the claims were rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 4 – 11 and 14 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the opposing player" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the emotional state" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the player status" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "acquiring game progress situation information" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The 112(b) rejection could be overcome by amending Claim 1 line 10 “to obtain” to –to acquire--.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the emotional state" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the physical condition" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 end with a comma, not a period. “Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period”, see MPEP 608.01(m).
Claim 6 recites the limitation "acquiring game progress situation information" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The 112(b) rejection could be overcome by amending Claim 1 line 10 “to obtain” to –to acquire--.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "acquiring game progress situation information" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The 112(b) rejection could be overcome by amending Claim 1 line 10 “to obtain” to –to acquire--.
Claim 8 does not end with a period. “Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period”, see MPEP 608.01(m).
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the probability" in line 4, “the type” in lines 5-6, “the remaining time: in line 6 and “the decision of winning or losing” in lines 6 - 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the player status of both players" in lines 3 - 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the attack and defense situation" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the probability of winning" in lines 4 - 5, “the type of winning” in line 6, “the remaining time” in line 6 and “the decision of winning or losing” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Elliott, US Pub. 2016/0361593 A1 (hereinafter Elliott).
In regards to Claim 1, Elliott discloses a method of broadcasting a fighting video obtained by filming a fighting game in which both players compete according to established rules, which is executed by a fighting video broadcasting apparatus (Elliott: [0039], where sensor units are placed on participants in a sporting activity in order to identify and analyze actions and/or movements made by the participants and transmit the analyzed data to broadcast viewer to consume in real time; [0044], where a pattern recognition module could be configured to work with boxing or MMA with the participant wearing the sensor in the gloves and the sensor collecting position, motion, acceleration, etc. This data could be correlated with patterns for known movements, e.g., hook, jab, haymaker, uppercut, etc., and once recognized could be interpreted into movement data and analyzed for metrics including form, speed, force, acceleration), comprising the steps of:
acquiring characteristic information about each of both players in the fighting game based on player information collected in advance before the start of the fighting game (Elliott: [0019], where acquire historical training data, generate historical training information from motion data and historical training data and provide historical training information for display on a display device);
generating a first viewing guide view representing at least a portion of the characteristic information (Elliott: [0061], where the system provides display elements, such as GUIs which display punch stats);
processing the fighting video to obtain game progress situation information of the fighting game (Elliott: [0054], where newly provided information about punches thrown from an identified boxer may be added to historical punch data and combined to form a current and accurate set of data points for consumption by end users; [0049], where if a live broadcast of a sporting event, e.g. MMA or boxing event, is occurring, local sensor data is provided to cloud servers for consuming the relevant content real time or near real time, e.g. number and type of strikes made by a participant as well as average speed/force of specific strikes; [0008], where received data needs to be processed, analyzed and provided for consumption quickly, such as concurrently providing with each round strikes v. strike landed in an MMA event; [0006], where analysis of performance data is displayed during sporting events, such as, during MMA fights, the number of strikes landed and total strikes is displayed); and
generating a second viewing guide view representing at least a portion of the game progress situation information (Elliott: [0061], where the system provides display elements, such as GUIs and a GUI can display Round by Round statistics for each fighter so that users can view and compare fighter A and fighter B).
In regards to Claim 12, Elliott discloses an apparatus for broadcasting a fighting video obtained by filming a fighting game in which both players compete according to established rules (Elliott: [0039], where sensor units are placed on participants in a sporting activity in order to identify and analyze actions and/or movements made by the participants and transmit the analyzed data to broadcast viewer to consume in real time; [0044], where a pattern recognition module could be configured to work with boxing or MMA with the participant wearing the sensor in the gloves and the sensor collecting position, motion, acceleration, etc. This data could be correlated with patterns for known movements, e.g., hook, jab, haymaker, uppercut, etc., and once recognized could be interpreted into movement data and analyzed for metrics including form, speed, force, acceleration), comprising:
a memory storing a computer program in which instructions for executing a fighting video broadcasting method are recorded (Elliott: [0116], where computer program instructions can be stored in a computer-readable memory); and
a processor operably coupled to the memory (Elliott: [0116], processing apparatus),
wherein when the computer program is executed by the processor, the computer program (Elliott: [0116], where computer-readable instructions implement depicted functions) causes the processor to
acquire characteristic information about each of both players in the fighting game based on player information collected in advance before the start of the fighting game (Elliott: [0019], where acquire historical training data, generate historical training information from motion data and historical training data and provide historical training information for display on a display device);
generate a first viewing guide view representing at least a portion of the characteristic information (Elliott: [0061], where the system provides display elements, such as GUIs which display punch stats);
process the fighting video to acquire game progress situation information of the fighting game (Elliott: [0054], where newly provided information about punches thrown from an identified boxer may be added to historical punch data and combined to form a current and accurate set of data points for consumption by end users; [0049], where if a live broadcast of a sporting event, e.g. MMA or boxing event, is occurring, local sensor data is provided to cloud servers for consuming the relevant content real time or near real time, e.g. number and type of strikes made by a participant as well as average speed/force of specific strikes; [0008], where received data needs to be processed, analyzed and provided for consumption quickly, such as concurrently providing with each round strikes v. strike landed in an MMA event; [0006], where analysis of performance data is displayed during sporting events, such as, during MMA fights, the number of strikes landed and total strikes is displayed); and
generate a second viewing guide view representing at least a portion of the game progress situation information (Elliott: [0061], where the system provides display elements, such as GUIs and a GUI can display Round by Round statistics for each fighter so that users can view and compare fighter A and fighter B).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliott in view of Barak, US Pub. 2019/0318582 A1 (hereinafter Barak).
Regarding Claim 8, Elliott discloses the method according to claim 1. But Elliott fails to explicitly disclose, further comprising the step of mapping at least one of the first viewing guide view and the second viewing guide view to an image section of the fighting video corresponding thereto
Barak from a similar endeavor teaches further comprising the step of mapping at least one of the first viewing guide view and the second viewing guide view to an image section of the fighting video corresponding thereto (Barak: Fig. 7B and [0107], where GUIs are shown that include a live video view of the game in progress and also show, for example, where the next landed box may occur on one of the boxers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Elliott in view of Barak such that along with the live video view of the game in progress, there is provided a graphic indicating a prediction of where the next box will occur, (Barak: Fig. 7B and [0107]). Displaying a live video of a sporting event along with a window indicating statistics of participants is well understood and combining Elliott in view of Barak would produce expected results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Carlin, US Patent 4,763,284 teaches recording/televising a sporting event such as boxing, martial arts, etc. and presenting force generated from each blow with the boxing match, (col. 2 ll. 25 – 30 and ll. 49 – 58). Viewers of the sporting event on television will have a dynamic account with respect to the values of, for example, the punches by the boxers (col. 4 ll. 62 – 65). Viewers on their home televisions can see the measurement of each blow to each boxer in real time displayed with the video, (Fig. 5 and col. 5 line 57 through col. 6 line 3).
Laycock et al., US Pub. 2012/0129585 A1 teach user interfaces in a sporting event broadcast used for making a prediction for an outcome in the competition. For example, the user interface may include an icon corresponding to a prediction that a full boxing round will elapse without a boxer being knocked out or may include an icon corresponding to a prediction that a boxer will be knocked out during the round, (Fig. 48 and [0121]). An event feed server may include information regarding events, such as, an attendee may input that a boxer knocked out his opponent, which information may be stored or indexed for later use, ([0042]).
Wanke et al., US Pub. 2019/0099653 A1 teach encouraging audience engagement when watching an athletic event using a crowd-sourced judging and scoring platform, ([0012]). The event may be an athletic competition which is suitable to evaluations including jujitsu, Tae Kwon Do, judo, MMA, wrestling, boxing, etc., ([0106]-[0107]). A window or user interface is provided within which scores will be accepted, (Figs. 8A-8D).
S. Saponara, "Wearable Biometric Performance Measurement System for Combat Sports," in IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 66, no. 10, pp. 2545-2555, Oct. 2017, doi: 10.1109/TIM.2017.2677679, teaches a wearable system for measurements of athlete’s performance in combat sports which provides objective measurements of athletes’ shots, posture, and movements, (Abstract).
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cynthia M FOGG whose telephone number is (571)272-2741. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-3:30.
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at (571)272-1915. 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.
/CYNTHIA M FOGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights