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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 3, 2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on September 3, 2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to amendments entered on February 14, 2024 for the patent application 17/462,259 filed on August 31, 2021. Claims 1, 3, 12, 15, 16 and 18 are amended. Claims 1-23 are pending. The first office action of March 10, 2023; the second office action of July 14, 2023; the third office action of November 15, 2023; the fourth office action of January 30, 2024; and the Patent Board decision of July 3, 2025 are fully incorporated by reference into this Final Office Action.
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 1-23 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.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claim 1 is directed to “a method” (i.e. a process), claim 9 is directed to “a system” (i.e. a machine), and claim 15 is directed to “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” (i.e. a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “determining golf club parameters,” in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion) which require the following limitations:
Per claim 1:
“train a neural network on a set of training data that includes at least parameterized motion representations of golf clubs during golf swings and time-frequency images of golf club swings;
obtain a series of images of a golf club during a golf swing using at least one camera;
convert the series of images into parameterized motion representations of the golf club during the golf swing;
obtain a radar signal from at least one radar;
convert the radar signal into time-frequency images;
input the parameterized motion representations and the time-frequency images into the neural network;
receive golf club parameters and golf swing parameters as an output of the neural network; and
generate a visual model of the golf club and the golf swing in a virtual space using the golf club parameters and the golf swing parameters.”
Per claim 9:
“train a neural network on a set of training data that includes at least parameterized motion representations of golf clubs during golf swings and time-frequency images of golf club swings;
obtain a series of images of a golf club during a golf swing using at least one camera;
convert the series of images into parameterized motion representations of the golf club during the golf swing;
obtain a radar signal from at least one radar;
convert the radar signal into time-frequency images; input the parameterized motion representations and the time-frequency images into the neural network;
receive golf club parameters and golf swing parameters as an output of the neural network; and
generate a visual model of the golf club and the golf swing in a virtual space using the golf club parameters and the golf swing parameters.”
Per claim 15:
“training a neural network on a set of training data that includes at least parameterized motion representations of golf clubs during golf swings and time-frequency images of golf club swings;
using at least one camera to obtain a series of images of the golf club during a golf swing;
converting the series of images into parameterized motion representations of the golf club during the golf swing;
using at least one radar to obtain a radar signal;
converting the radar signal into a club frequency spectrum of the golf club distributed over time;
inputting the parameterized motion representations and the club frequency spectrum into the neural network;
receiving golf club parameters and golf swing parameters as an output of the neural network; and
generating a visual model of the golf club and the golf swing in a virtual space using the golf club parameters and the golf swing parameters.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the applicants claimed elements of “at least one radar,” “at least one camera,” “at least one lighting unit,” “a memory,” and “a processor,” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying 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, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words the claimed “determining golf club parameters,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “at least one radar,” “at least one camera,” “a memory,” and “a processor,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional data gathering computing elements, Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a), which satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “processor” and “memory” are only mentioned once and is described in para. [0072], as follows: “[0072]: In some embodiments, processing related to the golf launch monitoring system 2100 may be performed by a processing device within the sensor device 2110. For example, the sensor device 2110 may include a processor, a memory, and/or instructions that may be capable of reading, storing, and/or executing instructions that may be used to transmit, receive, and/or process the signals from the sensor device 2110.”
Furthermore, the claimed “processor,” which is reasonably understood as “a computer,” is described in para. [0009], as disclosing the following: “[0009]: Using existing computer graphics method, this 3D model can re-generate graphics of the launching scene to be replayed at any viewing angle, with any frame rate and with any resolution. The 3D model may allow the user to interact with the graphics and may use known hardware components.”
Para. [0043] discloses something substantially similar with regard to computers: “[0043]: Using existing computer vision techniques, a 3D model of the club head can be re-constructed with sub-millimeter level accuracy.”
Likewise, the Applicant’s claimed “at least one camera,” is described in paras. [0040] and [0078], as follows: “[0040] FIG. 2 illustrates a block diagram of the measuring device 110 in accordance with one embodiment. In one embodiment, the measurement device may include four cameras. Two higher-speed, lower resolution cameras 101A, 101B form a stereo system for measurement of the club and ball movement during the swing, and two slower-speed, higher-resolution cameras 103A, 103B form another stereo system for measurement of the ball trajectory. In this embodiment, the system also includes an additional lighting system 104 to ensure properly lit images, a structured lighting module 105 for 3D scanning of the club head, a radar system 106 for providing timing and sequencing of image capture by the cameras, a computing sub-system 107 that performs some real-time processing, and a wireless communication sub-system 109 to send data to the viewing device.”
“[0078] FIG. 23A illustrates a series of images 2300 of a club in motion as may be captured by a camera. In some embodiments, the series of images 2300 may include a first image 2310, a second image 2312, a third image 2314, and a fourth image 2316. Although the first image 2310 illustrates an image of a club in motion, the object captured in the series of images 2300 may include a different club, such as the club 2102 of FIG. 21, and/or any other object that may be in motion, that may be captured by the camera.”
The Applicant’s “camera” variations are reasonably interpreted as being generic and commercially available, and providing no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment.
Also, the Applicant’s claimed “at least one radar,” is not positively recited and only mentioned twice as described in paras. [0040] and [0041], as follows: “In this embodiment, the system also includes an additional lighting system 104 to ensure properly lit images, a structured lighting module 105 for 3D scanning of the club head, a radar system 106 for providing timing and sequencing of image capture by the cameras, a computing sub-system 107 that performs some real-time processing, and a wireless communication sub-system 109 to send data to the viewing device” (see para. [0040]).
“The radar unit 106 may be used to detect the starting of the player's swing to trigger the working of the cameras. Precise timing and synchronization of the cameras may be done by the computing and controlling system 107, which may be a real-time computing and controlling system, realized in FPGA form, for example” (see para. [0041]).
At best, the Applicant’s ““at least one radar,” is reasonably understood as a switch for a camera. The Applicant provides no specificity to the particulars of the “at least one radar” to warrant anything other than a generic radar.
These elements are reasonably interpreted as generic components which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the claimed limitations of “at least one radar,” “at least one camera,” “a memory,” and “a processor,” are reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-8, 10-14 and 16-23 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-8, 10-14 and 16-23 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1, 9 and 15. Therefore, claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s request for consideration of the reply brief filed on July 26, 2024, submitted on September 3, 2025, is denied. The denial is based on a legal doctrine known as Res judicata, since the issues raised in the reply brief were decided by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board on July 3, 2025 resulting in the Examiner being affirmed.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 ROBERT P BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313)446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8:00-4:00.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at (571) 270-7625. 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.
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
9/8/2025 12:21 PM