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 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 simulation module” as presented in claim 1;
“a trajectory determination module” as presented in claim 1; and
“an object trajectory prediction module” 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 § 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 Kiraly et al (US 2019/0224552).
Claim 19: Kiraly teaches a system for determining the trajectory of a sport object (Kiraly Abstract; Paragraph [0002], [0008]), the system comprising:
a launch monitor, the launch monitor providing a least one optical sensor for detecting the trajectory of a sport object (Kiraly Figure 2-3; Elements 15, 110, 120; Paragraphs [0031]-[0032], [0034]- [0035]); and
an object trajectory prediction module, the object trajectory prediction module executing code (Kiraly Elements 15, 18, 30; Figure 4; Paragraph [0034]) to:
determine a plurality of predicted sport object trajectories based on sensor data from the at least one optical sensor (Kiraly Elements 15, 18, 30; Figure 4; Paragraphs [0033]-[0034], [0063]);
collect data concerning the plurality of predicted sport object trajectories (Kiraly Elements 15, 18, 30; Figure 4; Paragraph [0034]);
receive data on a plurality of actual sport object trajectories, corresponding to the plurality of predicted sport object trajectories (Kiraly 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 (Kiraly Elements 15, 18, 30; Figure 6; Paragraph [0037]); and
adjusting a physic model according to the difference (-Eq 1 & Eq 2- Kiraly 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, 3, 5-11, and 13-18 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) in further view of Gobush (2005/0272516).
Claim 1: The combination of Oh, Leitz, & Gobush teaches a system for determining the trajectory of a sport object propelled via an implement (Oh Abstract; Paragraph [0002]), the system comprising:
a launch monitor comprising an optical sensor and a processor (Oh Figure 2; Paragraphs [0034]-[0035]) and configured to:
detect the sport object (Oh Paragraphs [0035]-[0037]); and
capture images of the sport object while the sport object is launched by the implement (Oh Figures 1-3 Paragraphs [0035]-[0037]);
a sensing simulation module executing code (Oh Figure 2; Elm 120; Paragraphs [0015], [0035]) and configured to:
with a wired or wireless communication system, receive the captured images (Gobush Paragraphs [0071], [0091] & Oh Figure 2; Elements 110, 120; Paragraphs [0035]);
based on the captured images, determine launch characteristics of the sport object upon being launched (Oh Figures 2-3 Paragraphs [0035]-[0037]); and
a trajectory determination module executing code (Oh Figures 2-3; Paragraphs [0015], [0036]-[0037]) and configured to:
calculate a D-plane for the implement that launched 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); and
display the trajectory on a screen (Oh Figure 3; Paragraph [0024]).
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 before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed 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.
The prior art of Oh teaches the interconnection of camera to a sensing processor and transmission of sensed motion to a calculator component (Oh Figure 2; Paragraphs [0013], [0024], [0035]). While the prior art combination of Leitz & Oh does not explicitly teach the use of a wired or wireless communication system for linking system components, Gobush teaches that these were both known to be used in an analogous launch monitor (Gobush Paragraphs [0071], [0091]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the use of known wired and/or wireless communication as taught by Gobush into the combination of Leitz & Oh in order to provide the predictable and expected advantage of ensuring that the system components can communicate with one another without requiring additional operator action.
Claim 3: The combination of Oh, Leitz, & Gobush the system of claim 1, wherein the launch monitor does not include radar (-teaches the use of alternative approaches to utilizing radar due to expense associated with radar- Oh Figure 2; Elements 110, 120; Paragraphs [0004]-[0005], [0035]).
Claim 5: The combination of Oh, Leitz, & Gobush the system of claim 1, 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, & Gobush 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, & Gobush 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, & Gobush the system of claim 7, wherein the trajectory is determined at least in part based on a database of D-plane measurements and associated trajectories (-DB, AOA, LAG- Oh Figures 2-3; Paragraphs [0050] & Leitz Col 1:65-2:32).
Claim 9: The combination of Oh, Leitz, & Gobush the system of claim 1, wherein the D-Plane is used to calculate the spin of the sport object (Oh Figures 2-3; Paragraphs [0056] & Leitz Col 1:65-2:32).
Claim 10: The combination of Oh, Leitz, & Gobush 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, & Gobush a method for determining the trajectory of a sport object propelled via an implement (Oh Abstract; Paragraph [0002]), the method comprising:
with an optical sensing apparatus (Oh Figure 2; Paragraphs [0034]-[0035]), capturing images of the sport object while the sport object is launched by the implement (Oh Figures 1-3 Paragraphs [0035]-[0037]);
with a processor comprising a memory (Oh Figure 2; Paragraphs [0024], [0034]-[0035]):
via a wired or wireless communication system, receiving the captured images (Gobush Paragraphs [0071], [0091] & Oh Figure 2; Elements 110, 120; Paragraphs [0035]);
with the captured images, determining launch characteristics of the sport object upon being launched (Oh Figures 2-3 Paragraphs [0035]-[0037]);
calculating a D-plane for the implement 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); and
display the trajectory on a screen (Oh Figure 3; Paragraph [0024]).
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 before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed 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.
The prior art of Oh teaches the interconnection of camera to a sensing processor and transmission of sensed motion to a calculator component (Oh Figure 2; Paragraphs [0013], [0024], [0035]). While the prior art combination of Leitz & Oh does not explicitly teach the use of a wired or wireless communication system for linking system components, Gobush teaches that these were both known to be used in an analogous launch monitor (Gobush Paragraphs [0071], [0091]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the use of known wired and/or wireless communication as taught by Gobush into the combination of Leitz & Oh in order to provide the predictable and expected advantage of ensuring that the system components can communicate with one another without requiring additional operator action.
Claim 13: The combination of Oh, Leitz, & Gobush the method of claim 11, 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, & Gobush 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, & Gobush the method of claim 13, 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, & Gobush the method of claim 15, wherein the trajectory is determined at least in part based on a database of D-plane measurements and associated trajectories (-DB, AOA, LAG- Oh Figures 2-3; Paragraphs [0050] & Leitz Col 1:65-2:32).
Claim 17: The combination of Oh, Leitz, & Gobush 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, & Gobush 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiraly et al (US 2019/0224552) as applied to at least claim 19 above and further in view of Leitz (US 9,833,681).
Claim 20: The combination of Kiraly & 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 (Kiraly Paragraphs [0039] & Leitz Col 1:65-2:32).
Kiraly 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 Kiraly 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 Kiraly 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 28th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Commencing in Section A, as presented on page 6 of the above dated Applicant reply, the Applicant presents that the previously noted claim objection shave been addressed through the co-presented claim amendments.
Responsive to the preceding the previously presented claim objections have been withdrawn.
Continuing in Section B, as presented on pages 6-7 of the above dated Applicant reply, the Applicant presents that the previously presented interpretation of claims elements under 35 USC 112(f) has been overcome through claim amendment and reflect a particular definition of these element in the Applicant’s specification.
Responsive to the preceding and review of the Applicant’s specification including paragraphs [0035]-[0036] thereof, the interpretation of claims elements as amended is respectfully maintained under 35 USC 112(f)
Further continuing in Section C, as presented on pages 7-8 of the above dated Applicant reply, the Applicant presents that the previously presented rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(b) have been overcome through the Applicant co-presented claim amendments.
Responsive to the preceding the previously presented rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Yet further continuing in Section D, as presented on pages 8-11 of the above dated Applicant reply, the Applicant presents that the claims as amended define patent eligible subject matter as defined by 35 USC §101 for various reasons.
Responsive to the, Applicant presented arguments it is noted that the examination of applications is determined on a case-by-case basis, and accordingly the prosecution of another different application is not of relevance in the examination of the instant application barring limited specific concerns. Further public policy demands that every employee of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) refuse to express to any person any opinion as to the validity or invalidity of, or the patentability or unpatentability of any claim in any U.S. patent or the expiration date of any patent, except to the extent necessary to carry out: the job functions set forth in MPEP §1701. With regards to the preceding inquiries from members of the public relating to the matters beyond those specific set forth in MPEP §1701 must out of necessity be refused and such refusal should not be considered discourteous or an expression of opinion as to validity, patentability or enforceability.
The rejection of claims under this section has been withdrawn in view of the presence of a practical application involving the use of a particular machine as defined by MPEP 2106.05(b) and embodied in the recited launch monitor including an optical sensor adapted for detecting object trajectories of a sports object as particularly claimed.
Continuing in Section E, as presented on pages 11-12 of the above dated Applicant reply, the Applicant presents that the claimed invention of claim 19 is not anticipated by the prior art reference of Oh et al (US 2022/0233939) for various reasons.
Responsive to the preceding, it is noted that the previously presented rejection citations were intended to reflect the prior art of record, Kiraly et al (US 2019/0224552) rather than the listed reference of Oh et al (US 2022/0233939). Accordingly, this discrepancy has been corrected as presented herein above with respect to argued claim 19 and dependent claim 20. The Applicant’s arguments and presented amendments do not reasonably separate the claimed invention from the prior art of Kiraly et al as proposed.
Continuing in Section E, as presented on pages 12-14 of the above dated Applicant reply, the Applicant presents that the claimed invention of claims 1, 3, 5-11, 13-18 and 20 as amended are not rendered obvious by the prior art combination of Oh et al (US 2022/0233939) and Leitz (US 9,833,681) for various reasons including the amended feature directed to the use of wired or wireless connection.
Responsive to the preceding, the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-11, and 13-18 now incorporates the prior art reference of Gobush (2005/0272516) to address the applicant amended features as presented. Claim 20 stands rejected under the combination of Kiraly & Leitz for reasons noted with respect to claim 19 presented herein above.
In view of the preceding the rejection of claims is respectfully maintained as presented herein above
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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
Prosecution Insights