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 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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
[STEP 1] The claim recites at least one step or structure. Thus, the claim is to a process or product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
[STEP2A PRONG I] The claims 1 and 8 recite(s):
Claim 1:
A method for estimating information on a golf swing, the method comprising the steps of:
detecting, when a photographed image of a user's golf swing is acquired, at least one of a plurality of key points for a shaft of a club and a plurality of key points for a face of the club, and at least one joint of the user from the photographed image using an artificial neural network model; and
estimating a posture of the club on the basis of at least one of positions of the plurality of key points for the shaft and positions of the plurality of key points for the face, and
estimating information on the user's golf swing with reference to the posture of the club and a position of the at least one joint of the user.
Claim 8:
A device for estimating information on a golf swing, the device comprising: a club and joint detection unit configured to detect, when a photographed image of a user's golf swing is acquired, at least one of a plurality of key points for a shaft of a club and a plurality of key points for a face of the club, and at least one joint of the user from the photographed image using an artificial neural network model; and
a golf swing information estimation unit configured to estimate a posture of the club on the basis of at least one of positions of the plurality of key points for the shaft and positions of the plurality of key points for the face, and
estimate information on the user's golf swing with reference to the posture of the club and a position of the at least one joint of the user.
The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “artificial neural network” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people or in the mind of a person. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses a coach observing the swing of the user through series of photographs, paying attention to key points on the club and joints of the user’s, and performing estimation based on the club and the joint of the user.
As such the claim falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” or “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
[STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – “artificial neural network model”
The “artificial neural network model” in the aforementioned steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
[STEP2B] The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept (for example, see page 10 paragraph 2).
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 2-7, 9-13 are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. The claim recites no additional limitations. For example, claims 2-4, 6, 9-11 and 13 are directed to an estimation that is based on the observation of swing using different points on the shaft and club face; claims 5 and 12 is directed to the use of general artificial neural network (technological environment); and claim 7 is directed to a computer storage medium (technological environment). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a club and joint detection unit (configured to) and a golf swing estimation unit (configured to) in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 8-13 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. The limitation of “a club and joint detection unit” and “golf swing estimation unit” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f) as a computer implemented means plus function. As such, the specification must disclose the corresponding structure and/or algorithm that perform the function of club and joint detection and golf swing estimation. In this particular case, the specification only provides a description of the result of the club and joint detection unit (see paragraph 41-42 and 44-45). The MPEP 2181 II B states that the specification must explicitly disclose the algorithm for performing the claimed function, and simply reciting the claimed function or the result of the function in the specification will not be a sufficient disclosure for an algorithm which, by definition, must contain a sequence of steps. Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384, 91 USPQ2d at 1492 (stating that language that simply describes the function to be performed describes an outcome, not a means for achieving that outcome). Similarly, the limitation “golf estimation unit” are also rejected under the same rationale since the specification fails to provide the corresponding structure and/or algorithm that perform the function of estimating posture of the club on the bases of the one of the positions of the plurality of key points for the shaft and the face. In this particular case, the specification only provides a description of the result of golf estimation unit (see paragraph 71-75 and 84-89).
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Due to the rejection of claims 8-13 under 35 U.S.C 112(b) for failing to provide the necessary structure and algorithm, it will also be rejected 35 U.S.C 112(a)1. In this particular case, MPEP 2161.01 also requires that all computer implemented method or invention must be accompanied a specification that discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. An algorithm is defined, for example, as “a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). This requirement can not be met by a specification that simply specifies the desired results of the inventions (see MPEP 2161.01 and see analysis on the rejection of the 35 U.S.C 112(b) above. Accordingly, the limitation of claim 8-13 are also rejected under the 35 U.S.C 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda US 20050215336, in view of Manwaring US 6506124 and in view of Mooney WO 2009060011
Claim 1: A method for estimating information on a golf swing (see abstract), the method comprising the steps of:
detecting, when a photographed image of a user's golf swing is acquired (see paragraph 109 A still image is captured S12), at least one of a plurality of key points for a shaft of a club and, and at least one joint of the user from the photographed image (see paragraph 97 posture of the golfer, the swing of the golfer via the marker on the body and shaft); and
estimating a posture of the club on the basis of at least one of positions of the plurality of key points for the shaft, and estimating information on the user's golf swing with reference to the posture of the club (see paragraph 397 showing the positioning and posture of the golf swing in view of the shaft ) and a position of the at least one joint of the user (see paragraph 100 providing model of the golfer’s swing).
The Ueda reference is silent on the teaching of estimating posture based on a plurality of key points for a face of the club and positions of the plurality of key points for the face. However, the Manwaring reference provides a teaching of estimating posture based of a plurality of key points for a face of the club (see col. 4:55-65) and positions of the plurality of key points for the face (see FIG. 3 item 308, 305, 306).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Ueda reference with the feature of estimating posture based a plurality of key points for a face of the club and positions of the plurality of key points for the face, as taught by the Manwaring reference in order to provide a more accurate estimation of the golfer’s performance (see col. 2:25-30).
Furthermore, the Ueda reference is silent on the use of artificial neural network for the estimation. However, the Mooney reference the use artificial neural network for the estimation (see paragraph 35 line 28-35). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Ueda reference with the feature of artificial neural network for the estimation, as taught by the Mooney reference, since it allows for better analysis capability of the swing of the user (see page 36 line 20-26).
Claims 2 and 9: The Ueda reference provides a teaching of wherein the plurality of key points for the shaft include at least two of an arbitrary point located at an upper part of the shaft (see FIG. 6 item CM1 on the shaft of the club) and paragraph 98), an arbitrary point located at a lower part of the shaft (see FIG. 6 item CM3 and paragraph 98), and a point between the arbitrary point located at the upper part and the arbitrary point located at the lower part (see FIG. 6 item CM 2 between CM1 and CM 3)
Claims 4 and 11: The Ueda reference provide a teaching of wherein the posture of the club includes a posture of the face of the club, and wherein the plurality of key points for the face include at least three points that allow the posture of the face to be estimated.
However, the Manwaring reference provides a teaching of wherein the posture of the club includes a posture of the face of the club, and wherein the plurality of key points for the face include at least three points that allow the posture of the face to be estimated (see col. 7:52-8:10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Ueda reference with the feature of wherein the posture of the club includes a posture of the face of the club, and wherein the plurality of key points for the face include at least three points that allow the posture of the face to be estimated, as taught by the Manwaring reference, in order to
Claims 6 and 13: The Ueda reference provides a teaching of wherein in the detecting step, the positions of the plurality of key points for the shaft, the positions of the plurality of key points for the face, and the position of the at least one joint of the user are determined on the basis of a plurality of key points for the shaft detected from an image obtained by modifying the photographed image (see paragraph 261-262 for different extraction of features in the capture image);
a plurality of key points for the face detected from the image obtained by modifying the photographed image, and at least one joint of the user detected from the image obtained by modifying the photographed image, respectively (see paragraph 253 and 255 extracting color marker on the golf club).
Claim 7: The Ueda reference provides a teaching of a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having stored thereon a computer program for executing the method (see paragraph 101 item 16 HDD).
Claim 8: The Ueda reference provides a teaching of a device for estimating information on a golf swing, the device comprising:
a club and joint detection unit configured to detect, when a photographed image of a user's golf swing is acquired, at least one of a plurality of key points for a shaft of a club (see paragraph 109 A still image is captured S12), and at least one joint of the user from the photographed image using (see paragraph 97 posture of the golfer, the swing of the golfer via the marker on the body and shaft); and
a golf swing information estimation unit configured to estimate a posture of the club on the basis of at least one of positions of the plurality of key points for the shaft (see paragraph 397 showing the positioning and posture of the golf swing in view of the shaft), and
estimate information on the user's golf swing with reference to the posture of the club and a position of the at least one joint of the user (see paragraph 100 providing model of the golfer’s swing).
The Ueda reference is silent on the teaching of estimating posture based on a plurality of key points for a face of the club and positions of the plurality of key points for the face. However, the Manwaring reference provides a teaching of of estimating posture based of a plurality of key points for a face of the club (see col. 4:55-65) and positions of the plurality of key points for the face (see FIG. 3 item 308, 305, 306).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Ueda reference with the feature of estimating posture based a plurality of key points for a face of the club and positions of the plurality of key points for the face, as taught by the Manwaring reference in order to provide a more accurate estimation of the golfer’s performance (see col. 2:25-30).
Furthermore, the Ueda reference is silent on the use of artificial neural network for the estimation. However, the Mooney reference the use artificial neural network for the estimation (see paragraph 35 line 28-35). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Ueda reference with the feature of artificial neural network for the estimation, as taught by the Mooney reference, since it allows for better analysis capability of the swing of the user (see page 36 line 20-26).
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda US 20050215336, in view of Manwaring US 6506124, in view of Mooney WO 2009060011 and further in view of Masui US 11620857
Claims 3 and 10: The Ueda reference is silent on the teaching of wherein in the estimating step, the posture of the club is estimated on the basis of probability information on the at least two points.
Masui reference provide a teaching of wherein in the estimating step, the posture of the club is estimated on the basis of probability information on the at least two points (see col. 10:4-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Ueda reference with the feature of wherein in the estimating step, the posture of the club is estimated on the basis of probability information on the at least two points, as taught by the Masui reference in order to improve the accuracy of the posture detection (see col. 4:35-40).
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda US 20050215336, in view of Manwaring US 6506124, in view of Mooney WO 2009060011 and further in view of Mao et al “2
Claims 5 and 12: The Ueda reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the artificial neural network model is light-weighted using depth-wise convolution and pointwise convolution.
However, the Mao et al reference provides a teaching of wherein the artificial neural network model is light-weighted using depth-wise convolution and pointwise convolution (see page 2 (175488) column 2 last 15 line).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Ueda reference with the feature of wherein the artificial neural network model is light-weighted using depth-wise convolution and pointwise convolution, as taught by the Mao reference, in order to reduce floating point operations while maintaining detection precision (see abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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 J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
1 When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under section 112(a). See MPEP § 2163.03, subsection VI.
2 Mao et al. “Fast and Efficient Non-Contact Ball Detector for Picking Robots” in IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 175487-175498, 2019, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2955834.