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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 9/30/2025.
No claims have been amended.
No claims have been added.
No claims have been cancelled.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Both claims recite “a drive means;,” showing a semicolon followed by a comma on their respective lines 4, which is improper. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the towel holder (Claim 20) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The term “a drive means; a steering means;” in Claims 1, 14, and 20 meet the criteria of the three-pronged test.
The claim limitations use the term “means”
The term “means” is modified by functional language, here “drive,” and “steering.”
The term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Here, no further structure is specified for the means for “drive” and “steering.”
Therefore, the terms “drive means” and “steering means” in Claims 1, 14, and 20 is interpreted in this action according to 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The specification describes several means for driving and maneuvering the robot which will be used for examination purposes to interpret the claims in ¶ 0113 of the present specification, “Steering means 20 may comprise differential drive/differential wheel: the velocity difference between two motors drive the robot in any required path and direction is "differential drive"; "differential wheel" can employ two independently driven wheels fixed on a common horizontal axis. Another option is a "tricycle drive, employing three wheels with a fore steering wheel controlled by a motor and the two rear wheels attached to a common axle driven by a single motor with two degrees of freedom (either forwards or reverse). Steering means 20 may also be an "Ackermann" design that mechanically coordinates the angle of the two front wheels fixed on a common pivotable steering axle with the two rear wheels on a second, fixed driving axle. Retriever 12 may also comprise continuous track (also called tank tread or caterpillar track) treads in lieu of wheels 18 to facilitate movement on loose tennis court surfaces, for which a robot tread-drive ("tank drive") system may be utilized. Means for steering 20 then employs differential steering (movement is based on two separately driven wheels), applying more or less drive torque to one side of retriever 12 than the other to turn; this adds complexity and increases cost, requiring one or more additional motors and additional drive train components compared to non-track drive systems.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claim(s) 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to a computer readable medium. As explained in U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer-Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010):
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zietz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Cf Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multi¬ cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Claims 1 and 14 are directed to “programmed instructions,” which may be interpreted as signals per se. Claims 4 and 15 similarly are directed to “a programmed grid […] programmed with instructions, which similarly may be interpreted as signals per se. Accordingly, claim(s) 1, 4, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 2-13 and 15-19 are dependent upon the prior rejected claims and thus include the non-statutory subject matter, and are therefore similarly rejected.
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.
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.
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(s) 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simón Vilar et al (WO 2011086480, hereinafter “Simón”) in view of Yeager (US 20140038751, hereinafter “Yeager”) and Rafaeli (WO 2018198122, hereinafter “Rafaeli”).
Regarding Claim 1, Simón teaches:
A system for collecting a tennis ball on a first tennis court and for controllably releasing the ball toward a target, comprising: a mobile retriever, (Simón Pg 1 line 6-8 “The present invention relates to a method for the automatic collection and delivery of spherical game elements to a player, such as a ball and in particular a tennis ball, in a field for the practice of said sport,”)
comprising: a drive means;, a steering means; (Simón Pg 8 line 7-9 “Fig. 2 shows a possible ball collection apparatus 14, in a very basic version, which in the present invention includes a device provided with some driving wheels 17 and steering wheels 17a,” shown on collection apparatus 14 in Figure 2 to be similar to the “Ackerman” style as interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f))
PNG
media_image1.png
233
278
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a receiver; (Simón Pg 7 line 23-24 “These apparatuses 14 are remotely controlled (wireless communication, known in itself) by one or more control units 15 (implemented in the present case by a local computer which can be a notebook)” teaching wireless control of the ball collection apparatus, analogous to using a receiver)
an on-board power supply; (Simón Pg 9 line 12-13 “For this purpose the apparatus 14 is provided with some self-powered means such as a rechargeable battery.”)
a camera; (Simón Pg 10 lines 19-21 “The provided collection apparatuses 14 integrate, as shown in Fig. 2, at least one image acquisition device, selected from […] a video camera or another image capturing device,”)
a processor-controller with inputs for receiving control and data input signals including video data from the camera and outputs for executed programmed instructions including retriever command and control signals (Simón Pg 6 line 8-10 “control means, in connection with said acquisition and image processing means in communication with said spherical game element collection apparatus,” describing a control means for the collection apparatus,)
directing retriever locomotion (Simón Pg 6 line 10-14 “wherein said control means are provided […] to send a control command to said spherical game element collection apparatus so that it moves to the location,” describing movement directed via control commands)
for ball retrievals and releases (Simón Pg 9 line 27-29 “the apparatus 14 goes towards the ball 1 1 as quickly as possible, once it has reached the ball it proceeds with its collection and it places it in a delivery or throwing position,” and Pg 9 line 14-17 “The apparatus 14 includes means to interact with a player (luminous, acoustic signals, etc. and to receive commands: acoustic sensors, camera 16, etc.) to perform a controlled delivery of the collected spherical object to a player,”)
to and from a retriever standby location, (Simón Pg 4 line 11-12 “According to the proposed method the collection apparatus, which is at least one is situated at a game area, close to a game area,” Pg 9 line 29-32 “At this point the player 13 can decide if he wants the apparatus 14 to pass him the ball 1 1 and to return to a determined point or base or if he wants it to go to said base and wait for a request for a ball 1 1, from the player 13,” describing the collection apparatus waiting at the base location)
including […] ball release horizontally along the first tennis court surface toward the target […] (Simón Pg 9 line 14-17 “The apparatus 14 includes means to interact with a player (luminous, acoustic signals, etc. and to receive commands: acoustic sensors, camera 16, etc.) to perform a controlled delivery of the collected spherical object to a player,” and pg 5 lines 22-23 “The collection apparatus of the invention is provided to operate in such a way that it delivers the ball by sliding on the game surface,” describing a horizontal (sliding) release toward a player)
[…] a ball collector section including an opening sized for receiving and releasing a ball therethrough; […] (Simón Pg 8 line 9-10 “provided with a front portion 18 intended to embrace and retain a ball,” along with Fig. 2 above, describing and showing an opening that is intended to retain a ball)
[…] and a remote control. (Simón Pg 7 line 23-24 “These apparatuses 14 are remotely controlled (wireless communication, known in itself) by one or more control units 15 (implemented in the present case by a local computer which can be a notebook)” teaching wireless control of the ball collection apparatus, analogous to using a receiver)
Simón does not teach:
[…] inertial […]
[…] utilizing retriever momentum; […]
[…] a ball proximity sensor for sensing a ball in the ball collector;
and a detent operated by the controller-processor for selectively securing and releasing the ball; […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Simón, Yeager teaches:
[…] a ball proximity sensor for sensing a ball in the ball collector; (Yeager ¶ 0083 “The five stages that each game ball passes through along this path are: staging, pre-loading, loading, aiming and firing. The five stages correspond to the five ball position sensors that make up the ball loading sensor system. The individual sensors that make up the ball loading sensor system are located on the guides that the game ball travels along as it moves from the ball storage device and into the ball firing head. The loading sensors in this preferred embodiment are force-sensing resistors, but there are other types of sensors that can be used in other embodiments. The ball firing service uses the feedback from the five ball position sensors to track the location of each game ball during the ball firing process,” teaching loading sensors, which sense the proximity of a ball through contact sensing, which sense the position of a ball in the collector)
and a detent operated by the controller-processor for selectively securing and releasing the ball; […] (Yeager ¶ 0085 lines 1-12 “The first of these three sensors, loading sensor 96, is located just as the sweeper wheel 38 pushes the game ball into the first loading roller 56. The game ball is then rolled by loading roller 56 onto the firing guide 55 in the firing head. In order for each game ball to load into the firing head correctly, the firing head has to be elevated to the loading position by the ball firing service. The ball firing head must return to this loading position each and every time a game ball is rolled from the front loading guide 52 and onto the firing guide 55 in the firing head. The first loading roller 56, after it grabs the game ball from the sweeper wheel, then rolls the game ball onto the aiming sensor 98,” and ¶ 0086 “At the moment that the system arrives at the correct position, and the firing head is pointed at the correct heading and elevation, both loading rollers 56 and 57 are directed by the ball firing service to roll the game ball into the spinning firing motors and the game ball is fired across the court,” teaching the loading roller 56 performing the function of securing (grabbing) and releasing (loading into the firing head) the ball)
Simón and Yeager are both considered analogous because they both relate to autonomous robots that eject tennis balls. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the generally described automatic delivery of a ball to player on a field of practice for tennis using a collector apparatus of spherical elements of Simón with the simple addition of ball position sensors and loading rollers of Yeager. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by increasing the utility of the robot by combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143(I)(A)). The prior art teaches each claimed element, as shown between Simón and Yeager. The only difference between the claimed invention and the invention of Simón is the inclusion of Yeager’s ball position sensors and loading rollers. The individual elements of Simón would, in combination with Yeager, perform the same functions of ball collection and delivery. This simple combination of elements would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as would be the recognition that the results of the combination would be predictable. Furthermore, the combination would be made with a reasonable expectation of success according to MPEP 2143(I)(G) by ensuring that a ball is loaded properly in order to prevent damage from dry-firing the launching mechanism, and by properly securing and releasing the delivery of the ball, as both would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The combination of Simón and Yeager does not teach:
[…] inertial […]
[…] utilizing retriever momentum; […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Simón and Yeager, Rafaeli teaches:
[…] inertial [ball release horizontally along the first tennis court surface toward the target] utilizing retriever momentum; […] (Rafaeli ¶ 00056 lines 11-14 “the collection compartment in one embodiment continues to advance to provide momentum to the ball and then stops so that the ball will be ejected therefrom,” teaching that the momentum of the collection compartment is used to perform an inertial ball ejection)
Simón, Yeager, and Rafaeli are all considered analogous because they all relate to autonomous robots which eject tennis balls. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the generally described automatic delivery of a ball to player on a field of practice for tennis using a collector apparatus of spherical elements of Simón and ball position sensors and loading rollers of Yeager with the simple addition of Rafaeli’s release of the ball using the momentum of the collection compartment. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by increasing the utility of the robot by combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143(I)(A)). The prior art teaches each claimed element, as shown between Simón’s release of a tennis ball by unspecified means and Rafaeli’s momentum release. The only difference between the claimed invention and the invention of Simón is the inclusion of Rafaeli’s release using the momentum of the collection compartment. The individual elements of Simón would, in combination with Rafaeli, perform the same functions of ball release toward a target. This simple combination of elements would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as would be the recognition that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Regarding Claim 14, Simón teaches:
A mobile retriever for collecting a tennis ball on a first tennis court and for controllably releasing the ball toward a target, (Simón Pg 1 line 6-8 “The present invention relates to a method for the automatic collection and delivery of spherical game elements to a player, such as a ball and in particular a tennis ball, in a field for the practice of said sport,”)
comprising a drive means;, a steering means; (Simón Pg 8 line 7-9 “Fig. 2 shows a possible ball collection apparatus 14, in a very basic version, which in the present invention includes a device provided with some driving wheels 17 and steering wheels 17a,” shown on collection apparatus 14 in Figure 2 to be similar to the “Ackerman” style as interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f))
a receiver; (Simón Pg 7 line 23-24 “These apparatuses 14 are remotely controlled (wireless communication, known in itself) by one or more control units 15 (implemented in the present case by a local computer which can be a notebook)” teaching wireless control of the ball collection apparatus, analogous to using a receiver)
an on-board power supply; (Simón Pg 9 line 12-13 “For this purpose the apparatus 14 is provided with some self-powered means such as a rechargeable battery.”)
a camera; (Simón Pg 10 lines 19-21 “The provided collection apparatuses 14 integrate, as shown in Fig. 2, at least one image acquisition device, selected from […] a video camera or another image capturing device,”)
a processor-controller with inputs for receiving control and data input signals including video data from the camera and outputs for executed programmed instructions including retriever command and control signals (Simón Pg 6 line 8-10 “control means, in connection with said acquisition and image processing means in communication with said spherical game element collection apparatus,” describing a control means for the collection apparatus,)
directing retriever locomotion (Simón Pg 6 line 10-14 “wherein said control means are provided […] to send a control command to said spherical game element collection apparatus so that it moves to the location,” describing movement directed via control commands)
for ball retrievals and releases (Simón Pg 9 line 27-29 “the apparatus 14 goes towards the ball 1 1 as quickly as possible, once it has reached the ball it proceeds with its collection and it places it in a delivery or throwing position,” and Pg 9 line 14-17 “The apparatus 14 includes means to interact with a player (luminous, acoustic signals, etc. and to receive commands: acoustic sensors, camera 16, etc.) to perform a controlled delivery of the collected spherical object to a player,”)
to and from a retriever standby location, (Simón Pg 4 line 11-12 “According to the proposed method the collection apparatus, which is at least one is situated at a game area, close to a game area,” Pg 9 line 29-32 “At this point the player 13 can decide if he wants the apparatus 14 to pass him the ball 1 1 and to return to a determined point or base or if he wants it to go to said base and wait for a request for a ball 1 1, from the player 13,” describing the collection apparatus waiting at the base location)
including […] ball release horizontally along the first tennis court surface toward the target […] (Simón Pg 9 line 14-17 “The apparatus 14 includes means to interact with a player (luminous, acoustic signals, etc. and to receive commands: acoustic sensors, camera 16, etc.) to perform a controlled delivery of the collected spherical object to a player,” and pg 5 lines 22-23 “The collection apparatus of the invention is provided to operate in such a way that it delivers the ball by sliding on the game surface,” describing a horizontal (sliding) release toward a player)
[…]a ball collector section including an opening sized for receiving and releasing a ball therethrough; […] (Simón Pg 8 line 9-10 “provided with a front portion 18 intended to embrace and retain a ball,” along with Fig. 2 above, describing and showing an opening that is intended to retain a ball)
Simón does not teach:
[…] inertial […]
[…] utilizing retriever momentum; […]
[…] a ball proximity sensor for sensing a ball in the ball collector;
and a detent operated by the controller-processor for selectively securing and releasing the ball.
Within the same field of endeavor as Simón, Yeager teaches:
[…] a ball proximity sensor for sensing a ball in the ball collector; (Yeager ¶ 0083 “The five stages that each game ball passes through along this path are: staging, pre-loading, loading, aiming and firing. The five stages correspond to the five ball position sensors that make up the ball loading sensor system. The individual sensors that make up the ball loading sensor system are located on the guides that the game ball travels along as it moves from the ball storage device and into the ball firing head. The loading sensors in this preferred embodiment are force-sensing resistors, but there are other types of sensors that can be used in other embodiments. The ball firing service uses the feedback from the five ball position sensors to track the location of each game ball during the ball firing process,” teaching loading sensors, which sense the proximity of a ball through contact sensing, which sense the position of a ball in the collector)
and a detent operated by the controller-processor for selectively securing and releasing the ball. (Yeager ¶ 0085 lines 1-12 “The first of these three sensors, loading sensor 96, is located just as the sweeper wheel 38 pushes the game ball into the first loading roller 56. The game ball is then rolled by loading roller 56 onto the firing guide 55 in the firing head. In order for each game ball to load into the firing head correctly, the firing head has to be elevated to the loading position by the ball firing service. The ball firing head must return to this loading position each and every time a game ball is rolled from the front loading guide 52 and onto the firing guide 55 in the firing head. The first loading roller 56, after it grabs the game ball from the sweeper wheel, then rolls the game ball onto the aiming sensor 98,” and ¶ 0086 “At the moment that the system arrives at the correct position, and the firing head is pointed at the correct heading and elevation, both loading rollers 56 and 57 are directed by the ball firing service to roll the game ball into the spinning firing motors and the game ball is fired across the court,” teaching the loading roller 56 performing the function of securing (grabbing) and releasing (loading into the firing head) the ball)
Simón and Yeager are both considered analogous because they both relate to autonomous robots that eject tennis balls. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the generally described automatic delivery of a ball to player on a field of practice for tennis using a collector apparatus of spherical elements of Simón with the simple addition of ball position sensors and loading rollers of Yeager. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by increasing the utility of the robot by combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143(I)(A)). The prior art teaches each claimed element, as shown between Simón and Yeager. The only difference between the claimed invention and the invention of Simón is the inclusion of Yeager’s ball position sensors and loading rollers. The individual elements of Simón would, in combination with Yeager, perform the same functions of ball collection and delivery. This simple combination of elements would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as would be the recognition that the results of the combination would be predictable. Furthermore, the combination would be made with a reasonable expectation of success according to MPEP 2143(I)(G) by ensuring that a ball is loaded properly in order to prevent damage from dry-firing the launching mechanism, and by properly securing and releasing the delivery of the ball, as both would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The combination of Simón and Yeager does not teach:
[…] inertial […]
[…] utilizing retriever momentum; […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Simón and Yeager, Rafaeli teaches:
[…] inertial [ball release horizontally along the first tennis court surface toward the target] utilizing retriever momentum; […] (Rafaeli ¶ 00056 lines 11-14 “the collection compartment in one embodiment continues to advance to provide momentum to the ball and then stops so that the ball will be ejected therefrom,” teaching that the momentum of the collection compartment is used to perform an inertial ball ejection)
Simón, Yeager, and Rafaeli are all considered analogous because they all relate to autonomous robots which eject tennis balls. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the generally described automatic delivery of a ball to player on a field of practice for tennis using a collector apparatus of spherical elements of Simón and ball position sensors and loading rollers of Yeager with the simple addition of Rafaeli’s release of the ball using the momentum of the collection compartment. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by increasing the utility of the robot by combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143(I)(A)). The prior art teaches each claimed element, as shown between Simón’s release of a tennis ball by unspecified means and Rafaeli’s momentum release. The only difference between the claimed invention and the invention of Simón is the inclusion of Rafaeli’s release using the momentum of the collection compartment. The individual elements of Simón would, in combination with Rafaeli, perform the same functions of ball release toward a target. This simple combination of elements would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as would be the recognition that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Claim(s) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simón in view of Yeager, Rafaeli, and Miller et al (US 20160325849, hereinafter “Miller”).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Simón, Yeager, and Rafaeli teaches the limitations of Claim 1 as shown above. Simón does not teach:
further comprising a signal emitter positioned at the standby location for transmitting a signal to the receiver to guide the retriever to the standby location.
Within the same field of endeavor as Simón, Miller teaches:
further comprising a signal emitter positioned at the standby location for transmitting a signal to the receiver to guide the retriever to the standby location. (Miller ¶ 0062 lines 1-7 “For example, it should be understood that other UAV interfaces 24 and related equipment can be attached to the turntable assembly 26 of the UAV platform 20 and derive advantages from the ability of the turntable assembly 26 to rotate. Examples of such additional equipment include hardware which directs a signal toward the UAV 50 for homing, locating, tracking,” teaching directing a signal to an autonomous vehicle from a docking location (standby location) for the purposes of homing and locating (guiding to the location))
Simón and Miller are both considered analogous because they both relate to autonomous vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the generally described automatic delivery of a ball to player on a field of practice for tennis using a collector apparatus of spherical elements which waits at a determined point of Simón with the simple addition of Miller’s turntable base with a homing signal. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by increasing the utility of the system by combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143(I)(A)). The prior art teaches each claimed element, as shown between Simón and Miller. The only difference between the claimed invention and the invention of Simón is the inclusion of Miller’s homing signal at a base station. The individual elements of Simón would, in combination with Miller, perform the same functions of ball collection and delivery from a determined point. This simple combination of elements would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as would be the recognition that the results of the combination would be predictable. Furthermore, the combination would be made with a reasonable expectation of success according to MPEP 2143(I)(G) by improving the ability of the vehicle to locate and home in on the location, as is described within Miller ¶ 0062.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Simón, Yeager, and Rafaeli teaches the limitations of Claim 2 as shown above. Simón does not teach:
further comprising a docking turntable.
Within the same field of endeavor as Simón, Miller teaches:
further comprising a docking turntable. (Miller ¶ 0008 lines 1-5 “In contrast to the above-described conventional approaches to launching and recovering a UAV, improved techniques are directed to utilizing a UAV platform which is equipped with a turntable assembly. Such a platform enables precise control over angular direction,” teaching a turntable used for launch and recovery, describing a dock, of an unmanned vehicle)
Simón and Miller are both considered analogous because they both relate to autonomous vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the generally described automatic delivery of a ball to player on a field of practice for tennis using a collector apparatus of spherical elements which waits at a determined point of Simón with the simple addition of Miller’s turntable base for launch and recovery of the autonomous vehicle with a homing signal. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by increasing the utility of the system by combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143(I)(A)). The prior art teaches each claimed element, as shown between Simón and Miller. The only difference between the claimed invention and the invention of Simón is the inclusion of Miller’s turntable base station for launch and recovery. The individual elements of Simón would, in combination with Miller, perform the same functions of ball collection and delivery from a determined point. This simple combination of elements would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as would be the recognition that the results of the combination would be predictable. Furthermore, the combination would be made with a reasonable expectation of success according to MPEP 2143(I)(G) by allowing for precise angular control of the vehicle deployment and recovery, as is described within Miller ¶ 0008.
Claim(s) 4-7, 9-10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simón in view of Yeager, Rafaeli, and Letsky (US 20120265391, hereinafter “Letsky”).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Simón, Yeager, and Rafaeli teaches the limitations of Claim 1 as shown above. Simón further teaches:
wherein the processor-controller further comprises a programmed […] first tennis on-court ball retrieval areas (Simón Pg 1 line 18-23 “the game area will be intended to be that zone of the game surface or game field where the impact or fall of the ball is considered as being valid, according to the rules of the game. Likewise the game surface will be intended to be the game field as a whole including a zone surrounding the cited game area, where mainly ball collection apparatuses will operate,” describing the collection apparatus returning to the base location,)
and is programmed with instructions that upon execution direct the retriever to a […] ball retrieval area. (Simón Pg 6 line 8-15 “some control means, in connection with said acquisition and image processing means in communication with said spherical game element collection apparatus, wherein said control means are provided to process at least part of said images to detect the presence of at least one spherical game element in said surveillance area, and to send a control command to said spherical game element collection apparatus so that it moves to the location of said detected spherical game element, which is at least one, and it proceeds to collect it”)
Simón does not teach:
[…]grid including […]
[…] user-selected […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Simón, Letsky teaches:
[…a programmed] grid including [first…area…] (Letsky ¶ 0105 lines 1-8 “the autonomous robot 200 is put into operational mode where it begins the step of maneuvering across an area defined by the area of confinement 220, thereby completing step 150. Robot control system 230 may use the boundary information, robot dimensions (cutting width), and exclusion information to generate a grid or map that indicates where the autonomous robot 200 should travel,” teaching the division of the area of confinement, a robot working area, into a grid.)
[…direct the retriever to a] user-selected […area…] (Letsky ¶ 0082 “The first sequence in preparing the autonomous robot 200 for use in a new environment is for the user to go through the Setup Mode 110, which as discussed in detail below, results in the definition of the area of confinement (step 120),” teaching that the area of confinement is user-defined, i.e. user-selected.)
Simón and Letsky are considered analogous because they both relate to autonomous robots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic delivery of a ball to player on a field of practice for tennis using a collector apparatus of spherical elements of Simón with the simple addition of the user-defined working area divided into a grid of Letsky. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated according to MPEP 2143(I)(G) by preventing failures including damage, injury, and failed coverage by defining the robot working perimeter, as taught by Letsky ¶ 0005.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Simón, Yeager, Rafaeli, and Letsky teaches the limitations of Claim 4 as shown above. Simón further teaches:
wherein the grid further comprises off- court ball retrieval areas. (Simón Pg 1 line 18-23 “For clarity of the following explanation, in the present application the game area will be intended to be that zone of the game surface or game field 20 where the impact or fall of the ball is considered as being valid, according to the rules of the game. Likewise the game surface will be intended to be the game field as a whole including a zone surrounding the cited game area, where mainly ball collection apparatuses will operate” teaching that the ball retrieval areas include off-court areas, as modified by the grid of Letsky as previously taught)
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Simón, Yeager, Rafaeli, and Letsky teaches the limitations of Claim 4 as shown above. Simón further teaches:
wherein the retriever further comprises an on-board (Simón Pg 10 lines 19-21 “The provided collection apparatuses 14 integrate, as shown in Fig. 2, at least one image acquisition device, selected from […] a video camera or another image capturing device,” teaching that a camera is integrated into the collection apparatus)
ball locator for locating a ball within the user- selected ball retrieval area to facilitate a ball retrieval. (Simón Pg 6 line 8-14 “some control means, in connection with said acquisition and image processing means in communication with said spherical game element collection apparatus, wherein said control means are provided to process at least part of said images to detect the presence of at least one spherical game element in said surveillance area, and to send a control command to said spherical game element collection apparatus so that it moves to the location of said detected spherical game element,”)
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Simón, Yeager, Rafaeli, and Letsky teaches the limitations of Claim 6 as shown above. Simón further teaches:
wherein the grid further comprises off- court ball retrieval areas. (Simón Pg 1 line 18-23 “For clarity of the following explanation, in the present application the game area will be intended to be that zone of the game surface or game field 20 where the impact or fall of the ball is considered as being valid, according to the rules of the game. Likewise the game surface will be intended to be the game field as a whole including a zone surrounding the cited game area, where mainly ball collection apparatuses will operate” teaching that the ball retrieval areas include off-court areas, as modified by the grid of Letsky as previously taught)
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Simón, Yeager, Rafaeli, and Letsky teaches the limitations of Claim 6 as shown above. Simón further teaches:
wherein the retriever further comprises a vertical ball ejector and wherein the processor-controller is further programmed with instructions that upon execution direct the retriever to release the ball in a vertical direction toward a target. (Simón Pg 5 line 22-25 “The collection apparatus of the invention is provided to operate in such a way that it delivers the ball by […] launching it to perform at least a bounce before reaching the player, or throwing it at a determined height” teaching delivering the ball to a player by launching with a bounce and throwing at a determined height, both of which comprise vertical ejection)
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Simón, Yeager, Rafaeli, and Letsky teaches the limitations of Claim 6 as shown above. Simón further teaches:
wherein the retriever further comprises a horizontal ball ejector and wherein the processor-controller is further programmed with instructions that upon execution direct the retriever to activate the horizontal ball ejector during a ball release in a horizontal direction toward a target. (Simón Pg 5 line 22-23 “The collection apparatus of the invention is provided to operate in such a way that it delivers the ball by sliding on the game surface,” teaching delivering the ball to a player by sliding it across the (horizontal) game surface)
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Simón, Yeager, and Rafaeli teaches the limitations of Claim 14 as shown above. Simón further teaches:
wherein the processor-controller further comprises a programmed […] first tennis court ball retrieval areas (Simón Pg 1 line 18-23 “the game area will be intended to be that zone of the game surface or game field where the impact or fall of the ball is considered as being valid, according to the rules of the game. Likewise the game surface will be intended to be the game field as a whole including a zone surrounding the cited game area, where mainly ball collection apparatuses will operate,” describing the collection apparatus returning to the base location,)
and is programmed with instructions that upon execution direct the retriever to a […] ball retrieval area to retrieve a ball. (Simón Pg 6 line 8-15 “some control means, in connection with said acquisition and image processing means in communication with said spherical game element collection apparatus, wherein said control means are provided to process at least part of said images to detect the presence of at least one spherical game element in said surveillance area, and to send a control command to said spherical game element collection apparatus so that it moves to the location of said detected spherical game element, which is at least one, and it proceeds to collect it”)
Simón does not teach:
[…] grid including […]
[…] user-selected […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Simón, Letsky teaches:
[…a programmed] grid including [first…area…] (Letsky ¶ 0105 lines 1-8 “the autonomous robot 200 is put into operational mode where it begins the step of maneuvering across an area defined by the area of confinement 220, thereby completing step 150. Robot control system 230 may use the boundary information, robot dimensions (cutting width), and exclusion information to generate a grid or map that indicates where the autonomous robot 200 should travel,” teaching the division of the area of confinement, a robot working area, into a grid.)
[…direct the retriever to a] user-selected […area…] (Letsky ¶ 0082 “The first sequence in preparing the autonomous robot 200 for use in a new environment is for the user to go through the Setup Mode 110, which as discussed in detail below, results in the definition of the area of confinement (step 120),” teaching that the area of confinement is user-defined, i.e. user-selected.)
Simón and Letsky are considered analogous because they both relate to autonomous robots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic delivery of a ball to player on a field of practice for tennis using a collector apparatus of spherical elements of Simón with the simple addition of the user-defined working area divided into a grid of Letsky. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated according to MPEP 2143(I)(G) by preventing failures including damage, injury, and failed coverage by defining the robot working perimeter, as taught by Letsky ¶ 0005.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Simón, Yeager, Rafaeli, and Letsky teaches the limitations of Claim 15 as shown above. Simón further teaches:
further comprising an on-board (Simón Pg 10 lines 19-21 “The provided collection apparatuses 14 integrate, as shown in Fig. 2, at least one image acquisition device, selected from […] a video camera or another image capturing device,” teaching that a camera is integrated into the collection apparatus)
ball locator for locating a ball within the user-selected ball retrieval area to facilitate a ball retrieval. (Simón Pg 6 line 8-14 “some control means, in connection with said acquisition and image processing means in communication with said spherical game element collection apparatus, wherein said control means are provided to process at least part of said images to detect the presence of at least one spherical game element in said surveillance area, and to send a control command to said spherical game element collection apparatus so that it moves to the location of said detected spherical game element,”)
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Simón, Yeager, Rafaeli, and Letsky teaches the limitations of Claim 15 as shown above. Simón further teaches:
wherein the grid further comprises off- court ball retrieval areas. (Simón Pg 1 line 18-23 “For clarity of the following explanation, in the present application the game area will be intended to be that zone of the game surface or game field 20 where the impact or fall of the ball is considered as being valid, according to the rules of the game. Likewise the game surface will be intended to be the game field as a whole including a zone surrounding the cited game area, where mainly ball collection apparatuses will operate” teaching that the ball retrieval areas include off-court areas, as modified by the grid of Letsky as previously taught)
Claim(s) 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simón in view of Yeager, Rafaeli, Letsky, and Nakao et al (US 20180280780, hereinafter “Nakao”).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Simón, Yeager, Rafaeli, and Letsky teaches the limitations of Claim 7 as shown above. Simón further teaches:
wherein the […] ball retrieval areas include at least a […] tennis court. (Simón Pg 1 line 18-23 “For clarity of the following explanation, in the present application the game area will be intended to be that zone of the game surface or game field 20 where the impact or fall of the ball is considered as being valid, according to the rules of the game. Likewise the game surface will be intended to be the game field as a whole including a zone surrounding the cited game area, where mainly ball collection apparatuses will operate” )
Simón does not teach:
[…] off-court […] second […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Simón, Nakao teaches:
[wherein the] off-court [ball retrieval areas further comprise a] second […court.] (Nakao ¶ 0192 “An assist operation executed to report to players that a golf ball struck by a player on another hole is flying into their area will be explained next. The server 13 estimates the direction and carry distance of a shot golf ball based on an image captured when the shot is made and makes a decision as to whether or not the shot golf ball will fly into the area of another hole. Upon deciding that the shot golf ball will fly into the area of another hole, the server 13 transmits errant ball information reporting that a golf ball is flying into the area of the other hole to the portable terminal 12 carried by a player playing the other hole. The portable terminal 12, having received the errant ball information notifies the player of the approaching golf ball by displaying a warning on the display unit 121 or by outputting a warning sound. In addition, the errant ball information may be displayed on the display device 221 in the cart 220. The assist operation for reporting an errant ball is executed while another assist operation is underway,” teaching tracking of balls on a sporting field intruding into nearby sporting fields, and ¶ 0174 “The server 13 compares the golf ball landing position with the course data 133a in the database 133, and if the shot golf ball position is out of bounds, it transmits a control command (a flight command and a grip command) so as to engage the drone 11 in operation to retrieve the golf ball,” further teaching retrieving the ball analogous to Simón’s collection)
Simón and Nakao are considered analogous because they both relate to robotic monitoring of sport balls in a playing area. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic delivery of a ball to player on a field of practice for tennis using a collector apparatus of spherical elements which monitors the elements on the playing surface and nearby areas of Simón with the simple addition of Nakao’s monitoring and retrieval of balls in nearby areas analogous to Simón’s playing surface. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by increasing the utility of the robot by combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143(I)(A)). The prior art teaches each claimed element, as shown between Simón and Nakao. The only difference between the claimed invention and the invention of Simón is the inclusion of Nakao’s nearby hole area. The individual elements of Simón would, in combination with Nakao, perform the same functions of ball collection and delivery, but across multiple areas. This simple combination of elements would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as would be the recognition that the results of the combination would be predictable, and advantageously expand the retrieval area into nearby courts.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Simón, Yeager, Rafaeli, and Letsky teaches the limitations of Claim 17 as shown above. Simón further teaches:
wherein the […] ball retrieval areas include at least a […] tennis court. (Simón Pg 1 line 18-23 “For clarity of the following explanation, in the present application the game area will be intended to be that zone of the game surface or game field 20 where the impact or fall of the ball is considered as being valid, according to the rules of the game. Likewise the game surface will be intended to be the game field as a whole including a zone surrounding the cited game area, where mainly ball collection apparatuses will operate” )
Simón does not teach:
[…] off-court […] second […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Simón, Nakao teaches:
[wherein the] off-court [ball retrieval areas further comprise a] second […court.] (Nakao ¶ 0192 “An assist operation executed to report to players that a golf ball struck by a player on another hole is flying into their area will be explained next. The server 13 estimates the direction and carry distance of a shot golf ball based on an image captured when the shot is made and makes a decision as to whether or not the shot golf ball will fly into the area of another hole. Upon deciding that the shot golf ball will fly into the area of another hole, the server 13 transmits errant ball information reporting that a golf ball is flying into the area of the other hole to the portable terminal 12 carried by a player playing the other hole. The portable terminal 12, having received the errant ball information notifies the player of the approaching golf ball by displaying a warning on the display unit 121 or by outputting a warning sound. In addition, the errant ball information may be displayed on the display device 221 in the cart 220. The assist operation for reporting an errant ball is executed while another assist operation is underway,” teaching tracking of balls on a sporting field intruding into nearby sporting fields, and ¶ 0174 “The server 13 compares the golf ball landing position with the course data 133a in the database 133, and if the shot golf ball position is out of bounds, it transmits a control command (a flight command and a grip command) so as to engage the drone 11 in operation to retrieve the golf ball,” further teaching retrieving the ball analogous to Simón’s collection)
Simón and Nakao are considered analogous because they both relate to robotic monitoring of sport balls in a playing area. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic delivery of a ball to player on a field of practice for tennis using a collector apparatus of spherical elements which monitors the elements on the playing surface and nearby areas of Simón with the simple addition of Nakao’s monitoring and retrieval of balls in nearby areas analogous to Simón’s playing surface. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by increasing the utility of the robot by combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143(I)(A)). The prior art teaches each claimed element, as shown between Simón and Nakao. The only difference between the claimed invention and the invention of Simón is the inclusion of Nakao’s nearby hole area. The individual elements of Simón would, in combination with Nakao, perform the same functions of ball collection and delivery, but across multiple areas. This simple combination of elements would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as would be the recognition that the results of the combination would be predictable, and advantageously expand the retrieval area into nearby courts.
Claim(s) 11-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simón in view of Yeager, Rafaeli, and Naqvi (US 20160014568, hereinafter “Naqvi”).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Simón, Yeager, and Rafaeli teaches the limitations of Claim 1 as shown above. Simón further teaches:
wherein the processor-controller further comprises […] identifying a player-preferred retrieval […] to initiate a retrieval […] (Simón Pg 8 line 27-30 “It has also been provided that the apparatus 14 can deliver the ball in an automatic way, from some prefixed positions, E.g. next to the player, following an established command from the player” teaching an automatic delivery following an established command from a player (retrieval command to the based on player’s preference))
Simón does not teach:
[…] a heuristic learning algorithm for […]
[…] based on historical player-signaled retrieval information […]
[…] without a player- initiated retrieval command.
Within the same field of endeavor as Simón, Naqvi teaches:
[…] a heuristic learning algorithm for [identifying a player-preferred …] based on historical player-signaled retrieval information [to initiate a retrieval] without a player-initiated retrieval command. (Naqvi ¶ 0010 “preferences of a user are derived by machine-learning techniques,” and ¶ 0014-0016 “In accordance with one aspect of the invention the extrapolation of user/device positions yield patterns of user movements. In accordance with one aspect of the invention determining user movements involves matching the inferred patterns with stored patterns and selecting a matching pattern. In accordance with one aspect of the invention matching an inferred pattern with a stored pattern involves using heuristic pattern-matching techniques,” describing learning user preferences through heuristics, and ¶ 0245 “Once a user intent has been predicted or learned by the system it may be used to take actions in the physical environment (e.g., send an offer to a customer in a retail store) or saved for later use (e.g., re-target a user at home in an online interaction, for example, by showing him an advertisement related to his inferred intent),” teaching the use of the learned patterns to automatically initiate further human interaction, analogous to automatic initiation of the delivery interaction of Simón and the claimed invention)
Simón and Naqvi are considered analogous because they both relate to human-to-device interaction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic delivery of a ball to player on a field of practice for tennis using a collector apparatus of spherical elements according to the player’s command preference of Simón with the simple addition of Naqvi’s heuristic pattern-matching to learn user intent and use the user intent for further automatic interaction. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated according to MPEP 2143(I)(G) by better serving customer (users) with personalized service (exemplified by the learned patterns), as taught by Naqvi ¶ 0002.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Simón, Yeager, Rafaeli, and Naqvi teaches the limitations of Claim 11 as shown above. Simón further teaches:
further comprising an automatic mode for initiating a retrieval. (Simón Pg 8 line 27-28 “It has also been provided that the apparatus 14 can deliver the ball in an automatic way,”)
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Simón, Yeager, Rafaeli, and Naqvi teaches the limitations of Claim 12 as shown above. Simón further teaches:
further comprising a retriever status indicator. (Simón Pg 9 line 20-26 “In particular the means by which the apparatus 14 interacts with a user include […] an audio system has been provided in the apparatus to emit sounds and/or phrases and/or music 25 selectable by means of said control means depending on the operating status of the apparatus,” teaching indicating status by audio means)
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Simón, Yeager, and Rafaeli teaches the limitations of Claim 14 as shown above. Simón further teaches:
wherein the processor-controller further comprises […] identifying a player-preferred retrieval […] to direct a retrieval […] (Simón Pg 8 line 27-30 “It has also been provided that the apparatus 14 can deliver the ball in an automatic way, from some prefixed positions, E.g. next to the player, following an established command from the player” teaching an automatic delivery following an established command from a player (retrieval command to the based on player’s preference))
Simón does not teach:
[…] a heuristic learning algorithm for […]
[…] based on historical player-signaled retrieval information […]
[…] without a player-initiated retrieval command.
Within the same field of endeavor as Simón, Naqvi teaches:
[…] a heuristic learning algorithm for [identifying a player-preferred …] based on historical player-signaled retrieval information [to direct a retrieval] without a player-initiated retrieval command. (Naqvi ¶ 0010 “preferences of a user are derived by machine-learning techniques,” and ¶ 0014-0016 “In accordance with one aspect of the invention the extrapolation of user/device positions yield patterns of user movements. In accordance with one aspect of the invention determining user movements involves matching the inferred patterns with stored patterns and selecting a matching pattern. In accordance with one aspect of the invention matching an inferred pattern with a stored pattern involves using heuristic pattern-matching techniques,” describing learning user preferences through heuristics, and ¶ 0245 “Once a user intent has been predicted or learned by the system it may be used to take actions in the physical environment (e.g., send an offer to a customer in a retail store) or saved for later use (e.g., re-target a user at home in an online interaction, for example, by showing him an advertisement related to his inferred intent),” teaching the use of the learned patterns to automatically initiate further human interaction, analogous to automatic initiation of the delivery interaction of Simón and the claimed invention)
Simón and Naqvi are considered analogous because they both relate to human-to-device interaction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic delivery of a ball to player on a field of practice for tennis using a collector apparatus of spherical elements according to the player’s command preference of Simón with the simple addition of Naqvi’s heuristic pattern-matching to learn user intent and use the user intent for further automatic interaction. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated according to MPEP 2143(I)(G) by better serving customer (users) with personalized service (exemplified by the learned patterns), as taught by Naqvi ¶ 0002.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simón in view of Yeager and Naqvi.
Regarding Claim 20, Simón teaches:
A method for retrieving a ball and for delivering a towel on a sports playing surface, comprising: providing a mobile retriever, comprising: a drive means; a steering means; (Simón Pg 1 line 6-8 “The present invention relates to a method for the automatic collection and delivery of spherical game elements to a player, such as a ball and in particular a tennis ball, in a field for the practice of said sport,” and Pg 8 line 7-9 “Fig. 2 shows a possible ball collection apparatus 14, in a very basic version, which in the present invention includes a device provided with some driving wheels 17 and steering wheels 17a,” shown on collection apparatus 14 in Figure 2 to be similar to the “Ackerman” style as interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), where the mobile retriever is capable of delivering a towel as well as a ball)
a receiver; (Simón Pg 7 line 23-24 “These apparatuses 14 are remotely controlled (wireless communication, known in itself) by one or more control units 15 (implemented in the present case by a local computer which can be a notebook)” teaching wireless control of the ball collection apparatus, analogous to using a receiver)
an on-board power supply; (Simón Pg 9 line 12-13 “For this purpose the apparatus 14 is provided with some self-powered means such as a rechargeable battery.”)
a processor-controller, having inputs for receiving control and data input signals and outputs for retriever command and control signals (Simón Pg 6 line 8-10 “control means, in connection with said acquisition and image processing means in communication with said spherical game element collection apparatus,” describing a control means for the collection apparatus,)
directing retriever locomotion, (Simón Pg 6 line 10-14 “wherein said control means are provided […] to send a control command to said spherical game element collection apparatus so that it moves to the location,” describing movement directed via control commands)
and including […] identifying a preferred retriever command […] and directing the retriever accordingly; (Simón Pg 8 line 27-30 “It has also been provided that the apparatus 14 can deliver the ball in an automatic way, from some prefixed positions, E.g. next to the player, following an established command from the player” teaching an automatic delivery following an established command from a player (retrieval command to the based on player’s preference))
a ball collector section, including […] an opening sized for receiving and releasing a ball therethrough; […] (Simón Pg 8 line 9-10 “provided with a front portion 18 intended to embrace and retain a ball,” along with Fig. 2 above, describing and showing an opening that is intended to retain a ball)
[…] positioning the retriever at a standby location proximate to the sports playing surface; (Simón Pg 4 line 11-12 “According to the proposed method the collection apparatus, which is at least one is situated at a game area, close to a game area,” Pg 9 line 29-32 “At this point the player 13 can decide if he wants the apparatus 14 to pass him the ball 1 1 and to return to a determined point or base or if he wants it to go to said base and wait for a request for a ball 1 1, from the player 13,” describing the collection apparatus waiting at the base location)
directing the retriever via processor-controller outputs to conduct a ball collection and a ball release toward the target; (Simón Pg 9 line 27-29 “the apparatus 14 goes towards the ball 1 1 as quickly as possible, once it has reached the ball it proceeds with its collection and it places it in a delivery or throwing position,” and Pg 9 line 14-17 “The apparatus 14 includes means to interact with a player (luminous, acoustic signals, etc. and to receive commands: acoustic sensors, camera 16, etc.) to perform a controlled delivery of the collected spherical object to a player,”)
and directing the retriever via processor-controller outputs to the standby location following a retrieval and ball delivery to the target. (Simón Pg 9 line 29-31 “At this point the player 13 can decide if he wants the apparatus 14 to pass him the ball 1 1 and to return to a determined point or base,” describing the collection apparatus returning to the base location after the ball delivery)
Simón does not teach:
[…] a heuristic learning algorithm for […]
[…] according to prior player-initiated retriever commands […]
[…] a tray for supporting a ball, and […]
[…] a ball proximity sensor for sensing a ball in the ball collector;
a detent operated by the controller-processor for selectively securing and releasing the ball; […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Simón, Yeager teaches:
[…] a tray for supporting a ball, and […] (Yeager ¶ 0061 lines 3-5 “the ball storage device 20 which is a container for holding a plurality of game balls and is used for retrieving, storing and dispensing the game balls,” describing and showing a container analogous to a tray for supporting a ball)
PNG
media_image2.png
690
390
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[…] a ball proximity sensor for sensing a ball in the ball collector; (Yeager ¶ 0083 “The five stages that each game ball passes through along this path are: staging, pre-loading, loading, aiming and firing. The five stages correspond to the five ball position sensors that make up the ball loading sensor system. The individual sensors that make up the ball loading sensor system are located on the guides that the game ball travels along as it moves from the ball storage device and into the ball firing head. The loading sensors in this preferred embodiment are force-sensing resistors, but there are other types of sensors that can be used in other embodiments. The ball firing service uses the feedback from the five ball position sensors to track the location of each game ball during the ball firing process,” teaching loading sensors, which sense the proximity of a ball through contact sensing, which sense the position of a ball in the collector)
and a detent operated by the controller-processor for selectively securing and releasing the ball; […] (Yeager ¶ 0085 lines 1-12 “The first of these three sensors, loading sensor 96, is located just as the sweeper wheel 38 pushes the game ball into the first loading roller 56. The game ball is then rolled by loading roller 56 onto the firing guide 55 in the firing head. In order for each game ball to load into the firing head correctly, the firing head has to be elevated to the loading position by the ball firing service. The ball firing head must return to this loading position each and every time a game ball is rolled from the front loading guide 52 and onto the firing guide 55 in the firing head. The first loading roller 56, after it grabs the game ball from the sweeper wheel, then rolls the game ball onto the aiming sensor 98,” and ¶ 0086 “At the moment that the system arrives at the correct position, and the firing head is pointed at the correct heading and elevation, both loading rollers 56 and 57 are directed by the ball firing service to roll the game ball into the spinning firing motors and the game ball is fired across the court,” teaching the loading roller 56 performing the function of securing (grabbing) and releasing (loading into the firing head) the ball)
Simón and Yeager are both considered analogous because they both relate to autonomous robots that eject tennis balls. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the generally described automatic delivery of a ball to player on a field of practice for tennis using a collector apparatus of spherical elements of Simón with the simple addition of ball position sensors and loading rollers of Yeager. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by increasing the utility of the robot by combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143(I)(A)). The prior art teaches each claimed element, as shown between Simón and Yeager. The only difference between the claimed invention and the invention of Simón is the inclusion of Yeager’s ball position sensors and loading rollers. The individual elements of Simón would, in combination with Yeager, perform the same functions of ball collection and delivery. This simple combination of elements would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as would be the recognition that the results of the combination would be predictable. Furthermore, the combination would be made with a reasonable expectation of success according to MPEP 2143(I)(G) by ensuring that a ball is loaded properly in order to prevent damage from dry-firing the launching mechanism, and by properly securing and releasing the delivery of the ball, as both would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The combination of Simón and Yeager does not teach:
[…] a heuristic learning algorithm for […]
[…] according to prior player-initiated retriever commands […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Simón and Yeager, Naqvi teaches:
[…] including a heuristic learning algorithm for [identifying a preferred retriever command] according to prior player-initiated retriever commands […] (Naqvi ¶ 0010 “preferences of a user are derived by machine-learning techniques,” and ¶ 0014-0016 “In accordance with one aspect of the invention the extrapolation of user/device positions yield patterns of user movements. In accordance with one aspect of the invention determining user movements involves matching the inferred patterns with stored patterns and selecting a matching pattern. In accordance with one aspect of the invention matching an inferred pattern with a stored pattern involves using heuristic pattern-matching techniques,” describing learning user preferences through heuristics, and ¶ 0245 “Once a user intent has been predicted or learned by the system it may be used to take actions in the physical environment (e.g., send an offer to a customer in a retail store) or saved for later use (e.g., re-target a user at home in an online interaction, for example, by showing him an advertisement related to his inferred intent),” teaching the use of the learned patterns to automatically initiate further human interaction, analogous to automatic initiation of the delivery interaction of Simón and the claimed invention)
Simón, Yeager, and Naqvi are all considered analogous because they all relate to human-to-device interaction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic delivery of a ball to player on a field of practice for tennis using a collector apparatus of spherical elements according to the player’s command preference of Simón with the simple addition of Naqvi’s heuristic pattern-matching to learn user intent and use the user intent for further automatic interaction. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated according to MPEP 2143(I)(G) by better serving customer (users) with personalized service (exemplified by the learned patterns), as taught by Naqvi ¶ 0002.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN 107953344 A teaches a robot which delivers a towel, relevant to Claim 20.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY E GLADE whose telephone number is (703)756-1502. The examiner can normally be reached 4-5-9 7:30-16:30.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
/ZACHARY E. F. GLADE/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
