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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 12/29/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/29/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2-5 and 10 recites the limitation(s) "the ball", “the golf club”, “the wireless inertial sensor”, and/or “the swing”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedenko et al. (U.S. 9,211,439, hereafter referred to as Pedenko) in view of Oberc et al. (U.S. 10,232,225, hereafter referred to as Oberc) and further in view of Tremblay-Munger et al. (U.S. 2015/0057111, hereafter referred to as Munger).
Regarding claim 1, Pedenko teaches a system comprising: a core micro-controller processor 38 including a Bluetooth radio 42 (see figure 1e); a first triad acceleration sensor 10 and rate gyrometric sensor 18; a triad magnetometer sensor 48; a storage unit 22; a charging controller 34; and a battery 36.
However, Pedenko does not explicitly teach wherein the Bluetooth radio is a Bluetooth ‘Low-energy’ radio; a second triad acceleration sensor and rate gyrometric sensor; wherein the charging controller is a ‘Qi wireless’ charging controller; or a battery monitor.
Oberc teaches a similar system for obtaining sports-related data comprising an acceleration sensor 220, a gyroscopic sensor 215 and a magnetometer 225; Oberc further teaches inductive wireless charging (see column 5, line 48- column 6, line 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Pedenko with the teaching of Oberc since Qi wireless charging has been a common standard for wireless charging to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Munger teaches a system for quantifying motion which uses an acceleration sensor group 22 and a gyroscope sensor group 24; wherein each group operates in a small acceleration range (i.e. ‘Low-inertial’; see para. 0105); Munger further teaches a battery monitor 72 which monitors the battery status (see para. 0110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Pedenko with the teachings of Oberc and Munger 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMEL E WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-4pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at (571)272-4107. 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.
/JAMEL E WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights