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 .
Claim Status
After the amendments filed 11/03/2025, claims 1-2, 4-9, 14, 18 and 19-21 remain pending, of which 1 was amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 14, 18 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed to at least one of abstract idea groupings, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines (Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity). Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
More specifically, regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a system and/or process, which is are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A-1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 recites the following, with the abstract ideas highlighted in bold, including an indication as to the abstract idea grouping(s) to which the indicated limitations belong to, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines:
1. A method of performing a putter-type golf club fitting, the method comprising:
attaching a portable electronic device to a fitting putter-type golf club, the portable electronic device comprising:
a plurality of accelerometers and/or gyroscopes;
a graphical user interface (GUI);
a data storage device having stored thereon a plurality of club stroke type indicators, wherein each club stroke type indicator of the plurality of club stroke type indicators is associated with a selected putter-type golf club of a plurality of available putter-type golf clubs;
a software application stored on the data storage device and including instructions, and
a processing device operably communicating with the plurality of accelerometers and/or gyroscopes, the GUI, and the data storage device, and configured to execute the instructions; and
executing a plurality of putter strokes using the fitting putter-type golf club with the attached portable electronic device, wherein the plurality of putting strokes define a putting session;
capturing acceleration and movement data of the putter-type golf club from a putting session, by using the plurality of accelerometers and gyroscopes to determine an orientation of the portable electronic device (Mental Processes);
storing the captured acceleration and movement data on the data storage device;
utilizing the captured acceleration and movement data to determine at least one putting stroke characteristic of the user selected from a group of putting stroke characteristics consisting of a closing angle, an impact angle, an impact lie angle, a shaft lie angle, and a shaft loft angle based on the stored acceleration and movement data of the putter-type golf club during the putting session by the user (Mental Processes);
utilizing the captured acceleration and movement data to determine a user putter stroke arc type by matching the at least one putting stroke characteristic of the user to a user putting stroke type stored in the data storage device, wherein the user putting stroke type comprises one of a user straight stroke arc type wherein the closing angle is less than 3.5 degrees, a user slight arc stroke type wherein the closing angle is between 3.5 degrees and 7.5 degrees, or a user strong arc stroke type wherein the closing angle is greater than 7.5 degrees (Mental Processes); and
comparing the captured user putter stroke arc type to the stored stroke type indicator for each of the plurality of available putter-type golf clubs (Mental Processes);
wherein for each putting session each of the at least one putting stroke characteristics compute a plurality of consistency scores (Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts);
the plurality of consistency scores is averaged to create a handicap score (Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts);
the portable electronic device selects a recommended putter from the plurality of available putter-type golf clubs, wherein the recommended putter has an associated club stroke type indicator that matches the stored user putting stroke type (Mental Processes).
The limitations in claim 1 recites an abstract idea included in the groupings of Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts, connected to technology only through application thereof using generic computing elements (e.g., a portable electronic device, etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity. According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines:
Mental Processes include concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion); and
Mathematical Concepts include mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Specifically, the instant claims include functions/limitations, as highlighted in the independent claim above, that constitute at least:
Concepts performed in the human mind (e.g., “utilizing the captured acceleration and movement data to determine at least one putting stroke characteristic of the user selected from a group of…”), which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Mental Processes. These limitations are interpreted as at least Mental Processes insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the concepts in the human mind, while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims; and/or
Mathematical calculations (e.g., “the plurality of consistency scores is averaged to create a handicap score …”), which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Mathematical Concepts. These limitations are interpreted as at least Mathematical Concepts insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the calculations, while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims
Regarding dependent claims 2, 4-9, 14, 18 and 19:
Each claim is dependent either directly or indirectly from the independent claim identified above and includes all the limitations of said independent claim. Therefore, each dependent claim recites the same abstract idea as identified above. Each of the dependent claim further describes additional aspects of the abstract idea, i.e., additional aspects to the Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts. For example, some dependent claims merely provide additional Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts to be performed and/or additional insignificant extra-solution activity, without anything more significant to establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A-2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 14, 18 and 19-21 clearly do not improve the functioning of a computer, as they only incorporate generic computing elements, do not effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Similarly, there is no improvement to a technical field. In addition, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way. The claimed invention does not suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer components are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of “a portable device”, etc. used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility. These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer,’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
In addition to the abstract ideas indicated above, the claims include additional elements, such as:
“attaching a portable electronic device to a fitting putter-type golf club, the portable electronic device comprising: a plurality of accelerometers and/or gyroscopes; a graphical user interface (GUI); a data storage device having stored thereon a plurality of club stroke type indicators, wherein each club stroke type indicator of the plurality of club stroke type indicators is associated with a selected putter-type golf club of a plurality of available putter-type golf clubs; a software application stored on the data storage device and including instructions; and a processing device operably coupled to the plurality of sensors, the GUI, and the data storage device, and configured to execute the instructions”; and
“executing a plurality of putter strokes using the fitting putter-type golf club with the attached portable electronic device”.
As claimed, these additional elements are viewed as merely a nominal or tangential additions to the claim and as such are a form of insignificant extra-solution activity which does not meaningfully limit the claim and thus does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“storing the captured acceleration and movement data on the data storage device”.
As claimed, this additional element is viewed as a computer function which is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function which is claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity and thus does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Further, the claims would require structure that is beyond generic, such as structure that can be interpreted analogous to a general-purpose structure and general-purpose computing elements in that they represent well-understood, routine, conventional elements that do not add significantly more to the claims. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. The element of sensors attached to a putter type golf club are well known conventional devices used to electronically implement a swing analyzer as evidence by US 2017/0252607. US 2017/0252607 discloses that systems to measure the position and orientation of an object using inertial sensors are known in the art (¶4). See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The dependent claims do not add “significantly more” for at least the same reasons as directed to their respective independent claims, at least based on the position, as discussed above, that each of the dependent claims merely provide additional limitations to further expand the abstract idea of the independent claims, without adding anything which would establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Consequently, consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 11/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the newly amended claims overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection (See Remarks, pg. 8). The examiner must respectfully disagree. The examiner respectfully submits that the instant claims remain illegible under 35 U.S.C. 101, as discussed in the updated rejection as set forth above. Accordingly, the Applicant is directed to the rejection of the claims above for a detailed response to Applicant's arguments as to the eligibility of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant argues that the limitations of “determining a consistency score and a handicap score” are not abstract ideas in the grouping of “Mental Processes” (See Remarks, pg. 9). The examiner must respectfully disagree. It would be well withing the capabilities of a human, using nothing more than pen and paper, to perform such calculations.
Applicant argues that “the human mind cannot practically capture the acceleration and movement data of the putting stroke with sufficient precision to determine a putting stroke characteristic as claimed” (See Remarks, pgs. 9-10). The examiner must respectfully disagree. Initially, the instant claims require no specific precision in capturing the accretion and movement data. Rather, to capture acceleration and movement data, the claims use generic computing components (i.e., accelerometers and gyroscopes) to determine an orientation of the portable electronic device. A human could perform such functions by simply looking at the electronic device and mentally determining an orientation of the device, and using pen and paper to record (i.e., capture) the data. Further, a human could then use the captured acceleration and movement data to determine the at least one putting stroke characteristic, for example, by mentally determining that said acceleration and movement data is indicative of a particular impact angle.
Applicant argues that the naked eye of a human would be unable to determine the difference between a putting stroke with a closing angle of 3.5, 5.5 or 7.5 degrees (See Remarks, pg. 10). While this may be accurate, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the claims, as currently construed. While the claims do include limitations which describe the closing angles associated with the various the stroke arc types, theses values are not calculated or determined by any system, but rather are static values that are associated with the stroke arc types which are stored and determined by matching a putting stroke characteristic to the stored stroke arc types (for example if a first determined stroke characteristic (e.g., stroke loft angle) is matched to a straight stroke arc type, the closing angle of the stroke arc type is always less than 3.5 degrees, without having to be determined).
Applicant argues that the claimed invention integrates the abstract idea into a “practical application” (See Remarks, pg. 11). While in a sense, there is a practical application (as there is with all utility patents), there is no “practical application” within the meaning the courts have used the term in conjunction with §101. The courts have made it plain that in order to be considered a “practical application” in the §101 sense, software patents much improve the functioning of a computer as a computer. In short, there must be a technological solution to a technological problem. Applicant’s invention provides a technological solution to business problem. Recommending a putter to a player based on metrics is not a technological problem (i.e., it is not a problem or shortcoming of a computer), rather, it is a business problem. For example, not being able to recommend a putter to a player could lead to negative consequences, such as loss of revenue and/or loss of repeat business. Applicant has applied technology to solve this problem in order to attract more sales.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON PINHEIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-1350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00A-4:30P ET.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/Jason Pinheiro/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715