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 . This Action is made FINAL.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of the application’s status as a continuation of JP2021-007703
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection in view of Suzuki (US 20210133987 A1)
Claim Status
Claims 4 and 6-10 are interpreted under 112(f).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ueda (US 20120214606 A1).
Claims 6-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
“An image generating unit configured to…” in claim 4
“A control unit configured to…” in claim 4
“The image generating unit…” in claim 6
“The image generating unit…” in claim 7
“The control unit…” in claim 8
“The image generating unit…” in claim 9
“The control unit…” in claim 10
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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Suzuki (US 20210133987 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki discloses An image processing device comprising: (¶31 “the analysis apparatus 30 can be realized by a computer that executes a software program stored in a storage apparatus with a processor”)
an image generating unit configured to generate a trajectory image representing a trajectory of a club head of a golf club during a swing of the golf club (Fig. 8 and ¶43 “The display processing unit 35 displays, on a screen, a trajectory line that is a line tracing a trajectory of the head”) and a group of a plurality of face images each representing a face of the club head during the swing; and (¶51 “the analysis apparatus 30 superimposes and displays a first marker that indicates the position of the head at the specific time point, a second marker that indicates the position of the head in each image frame,”)
a control unit configured to display the trajectory image (¶43 “The display processing unit 35 displays, on a screen, a trajectory line that is a line tracing a trajectory of the head”) and the group of face images. (¶51 “the analysis apparatus 30 superimposes and displays a first marker that indicates the position of the head at the specific time point, a second marker that indicates the position of the head in each image frame,”)
wherein the image generating unit generates: (¶29 “The model generation apparatus 10 is an apparatus which performs learning by deep learning using a video of a swing motion performed by a person”)
an image of a line along the trajectory of the club head as the trajectory image; (¶43 “The display processing unit 35 displays, on a screen, a trajectory line that is a line tracing a trajectory of the head”)
images that represent the face of the club head as line segments as the plurality of face images; and (Fig. 8 disclose the trajectory of the golf club head as points and line segments.)
an image in which the image of the line as the trajectory image and the plurality of images that represent the face of the club head as line segments are overlapped, and (Fig. 8 disclose the trajectory of the golf club head as points and line segments. ¶51 discloses points representing the head of the golf club throughout the swing of a golf club. ¶43 discloses a line depicting the trajectory of the golf club head)
wherein the control unit displays the image in which the image of the line as the trajectory image and the plurality of images that represent the face of the club head as line segments are overlapped. (Fig. 8 disclose the trajectory of the golf club head as points and line segments. ¶51 discloses points representing the head of the golf club throughout the swing of a golf club. ¶43 discloses a line depicting the trajectory of the golf club head)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hagiwara (US 20170120123 A1) discloses an electronic apparatus includes a presentation portion that presents a ratio between a length of a trajectory of a predetermined portion of an exercise equipment and a length of a portion of the trajectory included in a predetermined region in a predetermined period of a swing, or presents a ratio between the predetermined period of the swing and time for which the predetermined portion of the exercise equipment is included in the predetermined region in the predetermined period.
Gollub (US 20210331056 A1) discloses systems and methods for a golf training aid which is designed to orient the player initially to have a correct backswing of the club and then follow through with a fairly natural downswing to produce the desired ball flight characteristics. In an embodiment, there is provided a device that encourages a user to practice a golf swing having a sufficiently steep angle for the plane of the swing.
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 MICHAEL KIM MAIDEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1264. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 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, Stephen Koziol can be reached at 4089187630. 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.
/MICHAEL KIM MAIDEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2665
/Stephen R Koziol/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights