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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement entered April 28th, 2025 has been considered. A copy of the cited statement(s) including the notation indicating its respective consideration is attached for the Applicant's records.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 12-13, and 15-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation "an implement" in lines 1 and 6. While these references to “an implement” are understood as intending to refer to the same implement the second refence does reference the same as “the” or “said” implement to reflect the use of appropriate antecedent basis
Claim 12 references the method of claim 9, whereas claim 9 is a system type claim.
Claim 13 references the method of claim 20, whereas claim 20 is a system type claim.
Claims 15 and 16 reference the method of claims 12 and 13 respectively and while this reference is correct at present, correction of the inconsistency in claims 12 and 13 as noted herein above will likely cause an inconsistency in the type of claimed invention in the instant claims and their respective parent claims 12 and 13.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“a sensing module” as presented in claims 1, 2;
“a trajectory module” as presented in claims 1; and
“an object trajectory predictor” claims 19 & 20.
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 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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 is directed a system including various components without any indication if the recited components are to be understood as being present in combination (e.g. “a, b, and c”) or alternative presented as alternative elements (e.g. “a, b, or c”) the lack of context renders the claimed invention indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonable informed of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 is directed a method including various components without any indication if the recited components are to be understood as being present in combination (e.g. “a, b, and c”) or alternative presented as alternative elements (e.g. “a, b, or c”) the lack of context renders the claimed invention indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonable informed of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 references a system comprising the elements of ”a launch monitor…”, “an object trajectory predictor…”, and performing the method steps of “determines a plurality of predicted sport object trajectories based on sensor data from the at least one sensor; collects data concerning the plurality of predicted sport object trajectories; receives data on a plurality of actual sport object trajectories, corresponding to the plurality of predicted sport object trajectories; analyze a difference between the plurality of actual sport object trajectories and plurality of predicted sport object trajectories; adjusting a physic model according to the difference. “
It is unclear if the Applicant intended to recite a method type claim, or an apparatus type claim and as such which singular statutory class of invention is intended to be encompassed by the claimed invention. Additionally, it is unclear if the Applicant intends for the recited object trajectory predictor to execute code that performs the recited method steps as identified above. The preceding renders the claims invention indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonable informed of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Remaining claims 2-10, 12-18 and 20 incorporate these issues through claim dependency and are according additionally rejected under this section.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As summarized in MPEP § 2106, subject matter eligibility is determined based on a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The instant application includes claims concerning a system (i.e., a machine) in claims 1-10, 19-20, and a method (i.e., a process) in claims 11-18.
In Prong 1 of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon.
In particular exemplary presented claim 1 includes the following underlined claim elements:
1. A system for determining the trajectory of a sport object propelled via an implement, the system comprising:
a sensing module executing code and configured to:
determine launch characteristics of a sport object upon being launched;
a trajectory module executing code and configured to:
calculate a D-plane for an implement that struck the sport object based on the launch characteristics;
determine a trajectory for the sport object based on the launch characteristics and the D-plane.
The claim elements underlined above, concern the court enumerated abstract ideas of Mathematical Concepts including mathematical calculations because the claims are directed to calculating sand utilizing a D-Plane, a Mental Processes including observation, evaluation, and judgement because the claims are directed to series of steps for observing the launch of a sports object, evaluating the launch and forming a judgement of the trajectory for a sports object, as well as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including managing personal behavior including interactions between people including social activities and following rules or instructions because the claims set forth the interactions involving one or more parties in the context of the social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions with relation to striking a sports object including a golf ball with an implement including a golf club.
As the exemplary claim recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon it is further considered under Prong 2 of Step 2A to determine if the claim recites additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Wherein the practical applications are set forth by MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) are broadly directed to: the improvement in technology, use of a particular machine and applying or using the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a technology environment. Limitations that explicitly do not support the integration of the judicial exception in to a practical application are defined by MPEP 2106.05(f-h) and include merely using a computer to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology environment or field of use.
With respect to the above the claimed invention is not integrated into a practical application because it does not meet the criteria of MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) and although it is performed on a sport object and an implement, it is not directed to a particular machine because the hardware elements are not linked to a specific device/machine and would reasonably include other devices such as generic computers, smart phones, laptops, and the like. Accordingly, the claims limitations are not indicative of the integration of the identified judicial exception into a practical application, and the consideration of patent eligibility continues to step 2B.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea(s) per se including a sport object and an implement amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structures that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry per the applicant’s description (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0001], [0017]-[0018], [0034]). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, as presented the claimed invention when considered as a whole amounts to the mere instructions to implement an abstract idea [i.e. software or equivalent process steps] on a generic computer [i.e. controller or processor] without causing the improvement of the generic computer or another technology field.
The applicant’s specification is further noted as supporting the above rejection wherein neither the abstract idea nor the associated generic computer structure as claimed are disclosed as improving another technological field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, or meaningfully linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0001], [0017]-[0018], [0034]). In particular the applicant’s specification only contains computing elements which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and accordingly their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art per the requirements of 37 CFR 1.71. Were these elements of the applicant’s invention to be presented in the future as non-conventional and non-generic involvement of a computing structure, such would stand at odds with the disclosure of the applicant's invention as found in their specification as originally filed.
“[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . .a computer,’ . . . that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132S. Ct. at 1301). In this case, the claims recite a generic computer implementation of the covered abstract idea.
The remaining presented claims 2-20 incorporate substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with respect to the exemplary claim 1, while the additional elements recited by the additional claims including one or more of a sport object/golf ball, an implement/club, launch monitor, and an optical sensor/sensor as respectively presented in certain claims that when considered both individually and as a whole in the respective combinations of each of the additional claims are not sufficient to support patent eligibility under prong 2 of step 2A or step 2B because they each present substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with reflection to exemplary claim 1 above and accordingly for the same reasons set forth above with respect to the exemplary claim 1 are similarly directed to or otherwise include abstract ideas.
Therefore, the listed claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oh et al (US 2022/0233939).
Claim 19: Oh teaches a system for determining the trajectory of a sport object (Oh Abstract; Paragraph [0002], [0008]), the system comprising:
a launch monitor, the launch monitor providing a least one sensor for detecting the trajectory of a sport object (Oh Figure 2-3; Elements 15, 110, 120; Paragraphs [0031]-[0032], [0035]);
an object trajectory predictor, the object trajectory predictor executing code (Oh Elements 15, 18, 30; Figure 4; Paragraph [0034] );
determines a plurality of predicted sport object trajectories based on sensor data from the at least one sensor (Oh Elements 15, 18, 30; Figure 4; Paragraphs [0033]-[0034]);
collects data concerning the plurality of predicted sport object trajectories (Oh Elements 15, 18, 30; Figure 4; Paragraph [0034]);
receives data on a plurality of actual sport object trajectories, corresponding to the plurality of predicted sport object trajectories (Oh Elements 25a-D, 30 Figure 4; Paragraph [0033]);
analyze a difference between the plurality of actual sport object trajectories and plurality of predicted sport object trajectories (Oh Elements 15, 18, 30; Figure 6; Paragraph [0037]);
adjusting a physic model according to the difference (-Eq 1 & Eq 2- Oh Elements 32; Figure 4; Paragraphs [0068], [0072]).
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.
Claims 1-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al (US 2022/0233939) in view of Leitz (US 9,833,681).
Claim 1: The combination of Oh & Leitz teaches a system for determining the trajectory of a sport object propelled via an implement (Oh Abstract; Paragraph [0002]), the system comprising:
a sensing module executing code (Oh Figure 2; Elm 120; Paragraphs [0015], [0035]) and configured to:
determine launch characteristics of a sport object upon being launched (Oh Figure 3 Paragraphs [0036]-[0037]);
a trajectory module executing code (Oh Figures 2-3; Paragraphs [0015], [0036]-[0037]) and configured to:
calculate a D-plane for an implement that struck the sport object based on the launch characteristics (Oh Figure 3; Paragraph [0050] & Leitz Col 1:65-2:32);
determine a trajectory for the sport object based on the launch characteristics and the D-plane (Oh Figure 3; Paragraphs [0037], [0050] & Leitz Col 1:65-2:32).
Oh teaches the invention including determining trajectory of a sports object based on the launch characteristics of a sport object upon being launched as cited above. While Oh doesn’t explicitly reference the calculation of trajectory parameters involving the use of a D-Plane, Leitz teaches that the use of the same was known in an analogous golf invention (Leitz Col 1:65-2:32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have utilized a D-plane as taught by Leitiz in the invention of Oh in order to provide the predictable and expected advantage simplifying the description of the plane formed by the intersection of the path/angle of attack direction and the club face direction at impact and identifying the orientation of the corresponding spin axis.
Claim 2: The combination of Oh & Leitz the system of claim 1, further comprising: a launch monitor, the launch monitor providing images of the sport object to the sensing module (Oh Figure 2; Elements 110, 120; Paragraphs [0035]).
Claim 3: The combination of Oh & Leitz the system of claim 2, wherein the launch monitor includes an optical sensor and does not include radar (Oh Figure 2; Elements 110, 120; Paragraphs [0035]).
Claim 4: The combination of Oh & Leitz the system of claim 3, wherein an optical sensing apparatus determines the launch characteristics (Oh Figures 2-3; Element 120; Paragraphs [0037]).
Claim 5: The combination of Oh & Leitz the system of claim 4, wherein the sport object is a golf ball and the implement is a club (Oh Figure 1; Elements 100; Paragraphs [0026]).
Claim 6: The combination of Oh & Leitz the system of claim 5, wherein the launch characteristics include a sport object velocity, a sport object launch angle, and a sport object spin (Oh Figures 2-3; Element 120; Paragraphs [0037]).
Claim 7: The combination of Oh & Leitz the system of claim 6, wherein the D-plane is a calculated striking angle of the club (Oh Figures 2-3; Paragraphs [0050] & Leitz Col 1:65-2:32).
Claim 8: The combination of Oh & Leitz the system of claim 7, wherein the D-plane of the club is referenced a database of D-plane measurements and associated trajectories to influence the trajectory for the sport object (-DB, AOA, LAG- Oh Figures 2-3; Paragraphs [0050] & Leitz Col 1:65-2:32).
Claim 9: The combination of Oh & Leitz the system of claim 1, wherein the D-Plane is used to calculate the spin of the sports object (Oh Figures 2-3; Paragraphs [0056] & Leitz Col 1:65-2:32).
Claim 10: The combination of Oh & Leitz the system of claim 6, wherein the D-Plane is used to calculate the sport object spin (Oh Figures 2-3; Paragraphs [0056] & Leitz Col 1:65-2:32).
Claim 11: The combination of Oh & Leitz a method for determining the trajectory of a sport object propelled via an implement (Oh Abstract; Paragraph [0002]), the method comprising:
determining launch characteristics of a sport object upon being launched (Oh Figure 3 Paragraphs [0036]-[0037]);
calculating a D-plane for an implement that struck the sport object based on the launch characteristics (Oh Figure 3; Paragraph [0050] & Leitz Col 1:65-2:32);
determining a trajectory for the sport object based on the launch characteristics and the D-plane (Oh Figure 3; Paragraphs [0037], [0050] & Leitz Col 1:65-2:32).
Oh teaches the invention including determining trajectory of a sports object based on the launch characteristics of a sport object upon being launched as cited above. While Oh doesn’t explicitly reference the calculation of trajectory parameters involving the use of a D-Plane, Leitz teaches that the use of the same was known in an analogous golf invention (Leitz Col 1:65-2:32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have utilized a D-plane as taught by Leitiz in the invention of Oh in order to provide the predictable and expected advantage simplifying the description of the plane formed by the intersection of the path/angle of attack direction and the club face direction at impact and identifying the orientation of the corresponding spin axis.
Claim 12: The combination of Oh & Leitz the method of claim 9, wherein an optical sensing apparatus determines the launch characteristics (Oh Figures 2-3; Element 120; Paragraphs [0037]).
Claim 13: The combination of Oh & Leitz the method of claim 20, wherein the sport object is a golf ball and the implement is a club (Oh Figure 1; Elements 100; Paragraphs [0026]).
Claim 14: The combination of Oh & Leitz the method of claim 11, wherein the launch characteristics include a sport object velocity, a sport object launch angle, and a sport object spin (Oh Figures 2-3; Element 120; Paragraphs [0037]).
Claim 15: The combination of Oh & Leitz the method of claim 12, wherein the D-plane is a calculated striking angle of the club (Oh Figures 2-3; Paragraphs [0050] & Leitz Col 1:65-2:32).
Claim 16: The combination of Oh & Leitz the method of claim 13, wherein the D-plane of the club is referenced a database of D-plane measurements and associated trajectories to influence the trajectory for the sport object (-DB, AOA, LAG- Oh Figures 2-3; Paragraphs [0050] & Leitz Col 1:65-2:32).
Claim 17: The combination of Oh & Leitz the method of claim 11, wherein the D-Plane is used to calculate the spin of the sports object (Oh Figures 2-3; Paragraphs [0056] & Leitz Col 1:65-2:32).
Claim 18: The combination of Oh & Leitz the method of claim 14, wherein the D-Plane is used to calculate the sport object spin (Oh Figures 2-3; Paragraphs [0056] & Leitz Col 1:65-2:32).
Claim 20: The combination of Oh & Leitz the system of claim 19, wherein the object trajectory predictor calculates a D-plane in the analyze step and wherein the D-Plane is used to calculate the sport object spin (Oh Figures 2-3; Paragraphs [0050], [0056] & Leitz Col 1:65-2:32).
Oh teaches the invention including determining trajectory of a sports object based on the launch characteristics of a sport object upon being launched as cited above. While Oh doesn’t explicitly reference the calculation of trajectory parameters involving the use of a D-Plane, Leitz teaches that the use of the same was known in an analogous golf invention (Leitz Col 1:65-2:32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have utilized a D-plane as taught by Leitiz in the invention of Oh in order to provide the predictable and expected advantage simplifying the description of the plane formed by the intersection of the path/angle of attack direction and the club face direction at impact and identifying the orientation of the corresponding spin axis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E MOSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-4451. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:45-3:45.
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, David Lewis can be reached at 571-272-7673. 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 E. MOSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/ROBERT E MOSSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715