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 .
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The Examiner notes that it has been held that a recitation that a structural element is "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to” perform a function does not limit the claim to a particular structure and thus only requires the ability to so perform the function. (See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. See also, MPEP 2111.04) As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and the prior art, the recitations of "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to” will be deemed met by an element in the prior art capable of performing the function recited in connection with "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to”. The examiner is aware of the functional language in the various claims.
Disclaimer
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0326688).
Regarding claim 1, Thomas discloses a system (100) for generating a fitting recommendation for a metalwood golf club (see abstract and all Figures (1-17B), the system (100) comprising: a launch monitor (102) comprising one or more sensors configured to capture ball flight characteristics (the use of sensors is disclosed in paragraph 28, “a conventional golf ball launch monitoring system 102 that measures various characteristics of a golf ball's 104 flight”); and a computing device (106) communicatively coupled to the launch monitor (102), the computing device (106) comprising: a processor (114), and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor (116), cause the system to perform operations comprising: receiving, by the computing device (106), player input data (as disclosed in paragraph 28, the user input system 108 allows the user to enter or a user input system 108); receiving, by the computing device (106) from the launch monitor (102), first ball flight characteristics for a first golf shot; generating, based on both the player input data (108) and the first ball flight characteristics (see paragraphs 10, 28. System 100 may include a conventional golf ball launch monitoring system 102 that measures various characteristics of a golf ball's 104 flight. Paragraph 28 discloses “The user input system 108 may allow the user to enter, control, or adjust settings for the computing system 106 and/or the launch monitor 102 or various components thereof, etc.” ), a first computed distance and a first computed accuracy; and generating, based on the first computed distance and the first computed accuracy (See paragraph 33-34, 54 and see Figure 8), determining a desired carry distance or a desired carry distance range for clubs in a fitted set based, at least in part, on an average ball carry distance and/or average total distance for at least one of the driver or a first fairway wood club (e.g., optionally, the previously fit clubs described above). See also paragraphs 33-34, 54 and see Figure 8, the fitting recommendation comprising at least one of a golf club head model, a loft, a shaft weight, or a shaft length).
It should be noted that examiner is giving the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as set forth in MPEP 904.01(a). The examiner notes that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art. SEE MPEP 2114.
The Thomas reference teaches a system that analyzes swing data and generates fitting recommendations for golf clubs. For example, in paragraph 9, the reference discloses that the “invention relate to systems and methods for fitting a golfer with a fitted set of golf clubs (e.g., a set of two or more clubs, and in some instances a complete or substantially complete set of clubs)”. Although Thomas does not expressly mention metalwoods, metalwoods are a well-known, conventional category of golf clubs. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the same swing parameters evaluated in the Thomas reference (e.g. swing speed, launch conditions, attach angle and so one) are routinely used when fitting metalwoods. It therefore would have been obvious to apply the system of Thomas to metalwoods to provide fitting recommendations for all standard club types, which is simply predictable use of the system for its intended purpose.
Regarding claim 2, Thomas discloses wherein the player input data comprises at least one of player’s preferred golf club head model (paragraph 71 discloses the use of iron model and other golf club models. This same paragraph discloses “If desired, a report may be generated (S1420) (e.g., as a printed copy, a computer display, etc.) indicating the recommended irons, fairway woods, and/or hybrids to be included in the user's fitted set” this indicates that the player input date could comprise player’s preferred golf club head model).
Regarding claim 3, see rejections of claims 1-2 and all Figures. Thomas discloses a display, wherein the operations further comprise: displaying, on the display (components 118 is a display), a first user interface comprising input fields; receiving, as input into the input fields of the data-input user interface (110), the player input data (as disclosed in paragraph 28, the user input system 108 allows the user to enter or a user input system 108); receiving, by the computing device (106) from the launch monitor (102) and for each golf club of a plurality of golf clubs, ball flight characteristics for each golf shot of one or more golf shots taken with the golf club, wherein the ball flight characteristics comprise golf ball total distance and golf ball lateral distance (for example, see paragraphs 10, 28 and Figures 6-10); generating, for each golf club of the plurality of golf clubs and based on the ball flight characteristics (see paragraphs 36-38, 51-52. See paragraphs 10, 28. System 100 may include a conventional golf ball launch monitoring system 102 that measures various characteristics of a golf ball's 104 flight) for each golf shot of the one or more golf shots taken with the golf club, a computed distance and a computed accuracy; ranking a plurality of potential fitting recommendations respectively corresponding to the plurality of golf clubs, and displaying, via the display and on a fitting recommendation representation in a second user interface (for example paragraph 12 discloses the use of multiple interfaces), the plurality of potential fitting recommendations according to their rankings; ranking the computed distances respectively corresponding to the plurality of golf clubs, ranking the computed accuracies respectively corresponding to the plurality of golf clubs (as discussed in the abstract, the system discloses the use of multiple clubs and determining and identifying a recommendation of a final club to the golfer and this can be regarded as a ranking process), displaying, via the display (for example one of 118, 700, 800, 1500, 1600) and on a distance-accuracy representation in the second user interface, the computed distances respectively corresponding to the plurality of golf clubs based on their rankings, and displaying, via the display and on the distance-accuracy representation in the second user interface, the computed accuracies based on their rankings; displaying, via the display (118, 700, 800, 1500, 1600), on a golf shot graphical representation in the second user interface, and for each golf club of the plurality of golf clubs, the golf ball total distance and the golf ball lateral position for each golf shot of the one or more golf shots taken with the golf club; and representing, on a pitch count user interface via the display, a number of golf shots that have been taken (for example, as shown in Figures 6-8 and 14A-16, the use of plurality of golf clubs being displayed with distance-accuracy representation, multiple user interfaces, and accuracies as recited are disclosed). It should be noted that the selection proposed by the Thomas reference is regarded as functionally equivalent to a ranking. If it is argued that multiple displays are not disclosed in the Thomas reference, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide multiple displays, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
In conclusion, Thomas already discloses a system for generating a fitting recommendation for golf clubs, and it includes all of the main components recited in the instant invent: a launch monitor, a computing device with a processor, display, memory, user input data, and the use of multiple golf clubs during the fitting process and so on. Although Thomas does not expressly describe each recommendation step in the same terms, such as ranking golf clubs or calculating distances for each club, these are routine data-analysis operations that a skilled artisan would find obvious to implement in any system aimed at identifying the best club for a user. Ranking, comparing, and selecting clubs based on measured performance are simply predictable variations of processing and presenting the collected data. Any of the missing steps from the Thomas reference do not produce any new technical effect and do not address any additional objective technical problem beyond what Thomas already solves. Therefore, the claimed selection and ranking steps would have been obvious in view of Thomas.
Regarding claim 4, wherein the operations further comprise receiving, by the computing device (106) from the launch monitor (102), ball flight characteristics for each of a plurality of golf shots taken with a first golf club comprising a first golf club head, wherein the plurality of golf shots include the first golf shot (see the three shots of clubs A, B, and C as shown in Figure 7), wherein the generating the first computed distance is based on both the player input data and the ball flight characteristics for each of the plurality of golf shots (for example see the distance/carry column as shown in Figure 7), and wherein the ball flight characteristics for each of the plurality of golf shots comprises a lateral golf ball position and at least one of a golf ball total distance or a golf ball carry distance (see paragraphs 53-54 and Figures 6-17B).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the operations further comprise receiving, by the computing device (106) from the launch monitor (102), ball flight characteristics for each of a plurality of golf shots taken with a first golf club comprising a first golf club head, wherein the plurality of golf shots include the first golf shot, wherein the generating the first computed accuracy is based on both the player input data and the ball flight characteristics for each of the plurality of golf shots , and wherein the ball flight characteristics for each of the plurality of golf shots comprises a lateral golf ball position and at least one of a golf ball total distance or a golf ball carry distance (see rejection of claim 1 above. For example, as shown in Figures 15-16, zone 1602 is considered as computed accuracy zone. The ball carry distance is disclosed on the left side of the display screen 1600).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the first golf shot is taken with a first golf club (for example, see Figures 1,3-7) comprising a first golf club head, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving, by the computing device (106) from the launch monitor (102), second ball flight characteristics for a second golf shot taken with a second golf club comprising a second golf club head; and generating a second computed distance based on both the player input data and the second ball flight characteristics, and a second computed accuracy based on both the player input data and the second ball flight characteristics (Figure 7 discloses multiple golf clubs and multiple ball flight characteristics for multiple shots), wherein the generating the fitting recommendation is based on the first computed distance, the first computed accuracy, the second computed distance, and the second computed accuracy, and wherein the fitting recommendation comprises: a golf club head model of the first golf club head and a golf club head loft of the first golf club head (see paragraph 9); or a golf club head model of the second golf club head and a golf club head loft of the second golf club head. In addition, paragraph 9 discloses “fitting a golfer with plural golf clubs includes: (a) fitting a golfer with a driver based, at least in part, on launch monitor data, wherein the driver to which the golfer is fitted includes a first loft angle and a first shaft flexibility characteristic; (b) selecting plural initial candidate fairway wood clubs based, at least in part, on the first loft angle and the first shaft flexibility characteristic; (c) hitting golf balls using the plural initial candidate fairway wood clubs and collecting launch monitor data relating to the hits correlated to the initial fairway wood club used for the hit; (d) optionally, selecting one or more additional candidate fairway wood clubs based, at least in part, on the launch monitor data collected when the initial fairway wood clubs were hit, and hitting golf balls using the one or more additional candidate fairway wood clubs; and (e) providing a recommendation for a final first fairway wood club based on the launch monitor data”; this discloses that multiple shots with multiple club heads that obviously have different configurations including different loft are assessed before recommendation. During normal use and operation of the device, the method steps as recited would obviously be performed.
Regarding claim 7, wherein the first golf club comprises a first shaft, and the second golf club comprises the first shaft (paragraph 48 discloses that the system could have a releasable club head/shaft connection (e.g., clubs constructed with removable shaft/head connections so that different heads can be quickly secured to a given shaft…)).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the first golf shot is taken with a first golf club comprising a first shaft, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving, by the computing device (114) from the launch monitor (102), second ball flight characteristics for a second golf shot taken with a second golf club comprising a second shaft (the use of multiple balls and club are disclosed in abstract); and generating a second computed distance based on the second ball flight characteristics (as shown in Figures 6-8, computed distance is shown and paragraph 5 discloses ball angle, ball spin rate that are considered as characteristics), and a second computed accuracy based on both the player input data and the second ball flight characteristics, and wherein the generating the fitting recommendation is based on the first computed distance, the first computed accuracy, the second computed distance, and the second computed accuracy (see rejection of claim 1 above), and wherein the fitting recommendation comprises: a golf club head model of the first golf club head and a golf club head loft of the first golf club head; or a golf club head model of the second golf club head and a golf club head loft of the second golf club head (paragraph 54 discloses recommendation for best club for accuracy and ball recommendation and it is inherent with the instant application that multiple clubs are used to compute accuracy as recited. See paragraphs 71, 78).
Regarding claim 9, wherein the first golf club comprises a first golf club head, and the second golf club comprises the first golf club head (the use of multiple club heads is disclosed in paragraph 45-48, 78-79).
Regarding claim 11, computer-implemented method for generating a golf club head fitting recommendation for a golf club (see abstract, see all Figures), the method comprising: receiving, by a computing device (106), player input data (as disclosed in paragraph 28, the user input system 108 allows the user to enter or a user input system 108); receiving, by the computing device (106) from a launch monitor (102) communicatively coupled to the computing device (106), ball flight characteristics for each of a plurality of golf shots with a first golf club comprising a first golf club head; and generating, based on the player input data and the ball flight characteristics for each of the plurality of golf shots with the first golf club (see paragraphs 46, 10, 28. System 100 may include a conventional golf ball launch monitoring system 102 that measures various characteristics of a golf ball's 104 flight. As discussed in paragraph 28, “the user input system 108 may allow the user to enter, control, or adjust settings for the computing system 106 and/or the launch monitor 102 or various components thereof, etc.” this indicates that the call flight characteristics and type of golf club head/heads data can be entered into the system by the user using the user input (108) the golf club head fitting recommendation comprising a golf club head model and a loft (paragraphs 6-7, 42-46, 50-52, 54-56). Thomas does not explicitly state if the recommendation could comprise a golf club head model and loft. It would have been obvious to generate a golf club fitting recommendation comprising club head model and loft using a computing device, player input data and a launch monitor as taught by Thomas. Launch monitors are well-known to measure ball flight, and player data is routinely used to customize club selection; combining these conventional elements to recommend head model and loft is a straightforward and predictable design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art.
During normal use and operation of the Thomas reference, the method steps as recited would obviously be performed.
Regarding claim 12, wherein the player input data comprises at least one of player’s preferred golf club head model (paragraph 71 discloses the use of iron model and other golf club models. Paragraph 28 discloses “the user input system 108 may allow the user to enter, control, or adjust settings for the computing system 106 and/or the launch monitor 102 or various components thereof, etc.”).
Regarding claim 13, see rejection of claim 11 above. The reference teaches receiving, by the computer device (106) from the launch monitor (102), ball flight characteristics for each of a plurality of golf shots with a second golf club comprising a second golf club head, wherein the generating the golf club head fitting recommendation is based on the player input data, the ball flight characteristics for each of the plurality of golf shots with the first golf club, and the ball flight characteristics for each of the plurality of golf shots with the second golf club (paragraph 9 discloses “fitting a golfer with plural golf clubs includes: (a) fitting a golfer with a driver based, at least in part, on launch monitor data, wherein the driver to which the golfer is fitted includes a first loft angle and a first shaft flexibility characteristic; (b) selecting plural initial candidate fairway wood clubs based, at least in part, on the first loft angle and the first shaft flexibility characteristic; (c) hitting golf balls using the plural initial candidate fairway wood clubs and collecting launch monitor data relating to the hits correlated to the initial fairway wood club used for the hit; (d) optionally, selecting one or more additional candidate fairway wood clubs based, at least in part, on the launch monitor data collected when the initial fairway wood clubs were hit, and hitting golf balls using the one or more additional candidate fairway wood clubs; and (e) providing a recommendation for a final first fairway wood club based on the launch monitor data” and paragraph 52 discloses that “display 600 a top chart or graph 602 is provided to illustrate the projected ball flight for one or more shots (as measured by the launch monitor) and the shot's deviation from a straight line flight (or from a center line), in order to illustrate potential hook, slice, fade, draw, or other ball flight characteristics. Additionally, this illustrated display 600 provides a second chart or graph 604 to illustrate the projected ball flight trajectory for one or more shots (as measured by the launch monitor), as well as the shot's projected carry and roll distances”.
Regarding claim 14, see rejection of claim 11 above. The reference teaches wherein the first golf club head has a first golf club head model, a first loft, a first hosel setting, wherein the method further comprises: receiving, by the computer device (106) from the launch monitor (102), ball flight characteristics for each of a plurality of golf shots with a second golf club comprising a second golf club head having a second golf club head model, a second loft, and a second set hosel setting, wherein at least one of the second golf club head model, the second loft, or the second hosel setting is different, respectively, from the first golf club head model, the first loft, or the first hosel setting; and generating, based on the player input data, the ball flight characteristics for each of the plurality of golf shots with the first golf club, and the ball flight characteristics for each of the plurality of golf shots with the second golf club, a fine tuned head recommendation comprising a golf club head model, a loft, and a hosel setting (paragraph 9 discloses “fitting a golfer with plural golf clubs includes: (a) fitting a golfer with a driver based, at least in part, on launch monitor data, wherein the driver to which the golfer is fitted includes a first loft angle and a first shaft flexibility characteristic; (b) selecting plural initial candidate fairway wood clubs based, at least in part, on the first loft angle and the first shaft flexibility characteristic; (c) hitting golf balls using the plural initial candidate fairway wood clubs and collecting launch monitor data relating to the hits correlated to the initial fairway wood club used for the hit; (d) optionally, selecting one or more additional candidate fairway wood clubs based, at least in part, on the launch monitor data collected when the initial fairway wood clubs were hit, and hitting golf balls using the one or more additional candidate fairway wood clubs; and (e) providing a recommendation for a final first fairway wood club based on the launch monitor data” and paragraph 52 discloses that “display 600 a top chart or graph 602 is provided to illustrate the projected ball flight for one or more shots (as measured by the launch monitor) and the shot's deviation from a straight line flight (or from a center line), in order to illustrate potential hook, slice, fade, draw, or other ball flight characteristics. Additionally, this illustrated display 600 provides a second chart or graph 604 to illustrate the projected ball flight trajectory for one or more shots (as measured by the launch monitor), as well as the shot's projected carry and roll distances”. This teaches that the method of fitting includes the use of set of clubs that each obviously have different head model or loft and the ball flight characteristics are for the golf shots are obviously fine tuned for the type of club is to be recommended as recited.
Thomas does not explicitly state if the recommendation could comprise a golf club head model, loft, and a hosel setting. It would have been obvious to generate a golf club fitting recommendation comprising club head model, loft and a hosel using a computing device, player input data and a launch monitor as taught by Thomas. Launch monitors are well-known to measure ball flight, and player data is routinely used to customize club selection; combining these conventional elements to recommend head model, loft, and hosel setting is a straightforward and predictable design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 15, see rejections of claims 1 and 6 above.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Voges et al. (US Patent No. 7,967,695).
Regarding claim 16, Thomas discloses a computer-implemented method for generating a shaft fitting recommendation for a golf club (see abstract and see all Figures), the method comprising: receiving, by a computing device (106), player input data (as disclosed in paragraph 28, the user input system 108 allows the user to enter or a user input system 108); receiving, by the computing device (106) from a launch monitor (102) communicatively coupled to the computing device (see Figure 1), ball flight characteristics (launch monitors are well-known to measure ball flight and Thomas discloses the use of sensors is disclosed in paragraph 28, “a conventional golf ball launch monitoring system 102 that measures various characteristics of a golf ball's 104 flight”) for each of a plurality of golf shots with a first golf club comprising a first golf club shaft (see abstract); and generating, based on the player input data and the ball flight characteristics for each of the plurality of golf shots with the first golf club, the shaft fitting recommendation comprising a shaft length (see Figures 1, 7, 9, 10). Thomas does not explicitly disclose if the shaft fitting recommendation could comprise both shaft length, and shaft weight. Voges in flow chart of Figure 3, for example, teaches shaft weight (310) and shaft length (314) teaching that shaft recommendation could comprise both shaft length and shaft weight. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to provide shaft fitting recommendation that comprises both shaft length and shaft weight so that the user could achieve as high a ball velocity as possible as disclosed in column 7 lines 55-56.
Regarding claim 17, Thomas discloses wherein the player input data comprises at least one of player’s preferred golf club head model (paragraph 71 discloses the use of iron model and other golf club models. This same paragraph discloses “If desired, a report may be generated (S1420) (e.g., as a printed copy, a computer display, etc.) indicating the recommended irons, fairway woods, and/or hybrids to be included in the user's fitted set” this indicates that the player input date could comprise player’s preferred golf club head model).
Regarding claim 18, Thomas further teaches comprising receiving, by the computer device (114) from the launch monitor (102), ball flight characteristics for each of a plurality of golf shots with a second golf club comprising a second golf club shaft, wherein the generating the shaft fitting recommendation is based on the player input data, the ball flight characteristics for each of the plurality of golf shots with the first golf club, and the ball flight characteristics for each of the plurality of golf shots with the second golf club (see rejection of claim 6 above). Thomas teaches the steps of generating a golf club fitting recommendation comprising club head model and loft using a computing device, player input data and a launch monitor. Launch monitors are well-known to measure ball flight, and player data is routinely used to customize club selection. During normal use and operation of the Thomas reference, the method steps as recited would obviously be performed.
Regarding claim 19, see the rejections of claims 1-3, 6 and 8 above.
Regarding claim 20, Thomas discloses receiving, by the computer device (106) from the launch monitor (102), ball flight characteristics for each of a plurality of golf shots with a golf club comprising the first golf club shaft and a first golf club head (see Figure 1. The use of sensors is disclosed in paragraph 28, “a conventional golf ball launch monitoring system 102 that measures various characteristics of a golf ball's 104 flight”); and generating, based on the player input data (as disclosed in paragraph 28, the user input system 108 allows the user to enter or a user input system 108) and the ball flight characteristics for each of the plurality of golf shots with the golf club comprising the first golf club shaft and the first golf club head, a golf club head recommendation comprising a golf club head model and a loft (see abstract). Thomas does not explicitly show wherein the generating the golf club head recommendation occurs after the generating the shaft fitting recommendation. However, Voges discloses the concept of generating head recommendation after generating shaft fitting recommendation since as shown in Figure 3, the steps related to shaft (see steps 308, 310,312,314,316,318) occur before steps of assessing club head type (see steps 324,326,328). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to generate a club head recommendation after determining the shaft fitting recommendation. This is because the shaft characteristics (e.g., flex, weight, bend profile and length) fundamentally affect a player’s swing dynamics and resulting ball flight, a system that first identifies an optimized shaft would naturally enable a more accurate selection of a compatible club head. Thus, modifying the Thomas reference in view Voges to perform club head selection after shaft fitting merely applies a known, predictable sequence to improve fitting precision and would have been obvious.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Brekke et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0274256).
Thomas discloses the invention as discussed in the claims discussed above. Thomas does not disclose the computing device to be able to generate the first plurality of potential golf clubs by an inventory database to provide a second plurality of potential golf clubs. The use of inventory database in a computing device is not a new concept and Brekke is one example of reference that teaches the use of inventor of shafts (231) in database (226) in paragraph 200. In this paragraph it is disclosed that “the inventory of the shafts 231 may be included in the database 226, such that when one of the shafts 231 is out of inventory, the database 226 dynamically updates such that the shaft recommendations output as a result of the shaft algorithm 238 are only the shafts 231 that are in stock”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the computing device of Brekke with inventory database of multiple golf clubs as recited since this will improve speed, accuracy, and reliability by allowing the system to instantly compare player data with available club options. This eliminates external lookups, reduces errors, and enables faster, more comprehensive fitting recommendations. During normal use and operation of the Thomas in view of the Brekke reference, the method steps as provided would obviously be performed.
Conclusion
The following are suggested formats for either a Certificate of Mailing or Certificate of Transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). The certification may be included with all correspondence concerning this application or proceeding to establish a date of mailing or transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). Proper use of this procedure will result in such communication being considered as timely if the established date is within the required period for reply. The Certificate should be signed by the individual actually depositing or transmitting the correspondence or by an individual who, upon information and belief, expects the correspondence to be mailed or transmitted in the normal course of business by another no later than the date indicated.
Certificate of Mailing
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the United States Postal Service with sufficient postage as first class mail in an envelope addressed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
on __________.
(Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
________________________________________________________
Signature: ______________________________________
Certificate of Transmission by Facsimile
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being facsimile transmitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Fax No. (___)_____ -_________ on _____________. (Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
_________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________
Certificate of Transmission via USPTO Patent Electronic Filing System
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being transmitted via the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent electronic filing system to the USPTO
on _____________.
(Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
_________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________
Please refer to 37 CFR 1.6(a)(4), 1.6(d) and 1.8(a)(2) for filing limitations concerning transmissions via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, facsimile transmissions and mailing, respectively.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINI F LEGESSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4412. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday 9 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Nicholas J. Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/NINI F LEGESSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711