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 . 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 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.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The response and amendments, filed 4/2/26, has been entered. Claims 1-17 are pending upon entry of this Amendment. Examiner noticed an error in using Swartz in previous action, therefore, informed Applicant that first: rejection over Swartz will be withdrawn, second: the limitation is anyway rejected over prior art of record based on obviousness and there is not patentable weight for the limitation, because the limitation on which Swartz was relied is very well known in golf swing analyzing apparatus1, i.e., to calculate features correlated to force that golfer applies to the shaft (in fact, the claim is broad with even no limiting to a golf club, only a swing object). Applicant also was advised to do a simple amendment and amending claim 1 to overcome 101 rejection, Applicant has implemented that proposed amendment in new claim 17, therefore, claim 17 is eligible, but claim 1 and other dependent claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejections of claims have been fully considered, and the response provided to the Applicant during interview will be repeated here:
On page 8 of Remarks, Applicant argues that the measurement target object is integral in the claim and specifies a select class of devices. The Office action does not dispute this. Instead, the Office action dismisses the practical application recited by the claim and alleges that the sensor, measurement target object, transmitter, etc. are generic and common knowledge. But based on MPEP 2106.04(d) ("Step 2A “ ) weight is not properly given to all of the additional elements and the alleged abstract ideas are integrated into a practical application.
Response:
Based on MPEP 2106.05(g), one of the tests when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. In this case, the sensor represents necessary data-gathering and due to the generic recitation, it does not meaningfully limit the claim. As cited on page 6 of previous office action, Examiner considered all of the additional elements as a whole, and did not find them to impart a practical application. Furthermore, an improvement to technology because the device only sends select measurements – not recited in the independent claim, is not considered as an improvement to technology unless present in the claim itself.
Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
2019 Revised Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG): Step 1:
Claims 1-16 are directed to a system (i.e., a sensor unit ). Accordingly, claims 1-16 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
2019 PEG: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the 2019 PEG, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groupings of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea.
Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
Claim 1. A sensor unit comprising:
a sensor that is attached to a measurement target object that deforms in response to being swung by a user, the sensor being configured to generate an output signal indicating a relationship between time and a physical quantity related to an amount of deformation of the measurement target object;
a feature value generation circuit comprising a storage medium configured to store a first mass of the measurement target object and an elastic modulus of the measurement target object, the feature value generation circuit being configured to:
calculate a first force that the user applies to the measurement target object at a specific time, on the basis of the output signal, the first mass, and the elastic modulus; and
generate a feature value on the basis of the output signal, the feature value being a parameter indicating a feature of the swing and including the first force at the specific time; and
a transmitter that is attached to the measurement target object and that is configured to transmit the feature value to an external device by wireless communication or wired communication.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute:
a) calculations that are mathematical concepts, and/or b) generating data that are mental processes.
Accordingly, the claim is directed toward at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, the dependent claims include limitations that merely further define the abstract idea (and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract) or fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below.
2019 PEG: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 1. A sensor unit comprising:
a sensor that is attached to a measurement target object that deforms in response to being swung by a user, the sensor being configured to generate an output signal indicating a relationship between time and a physical quantity related to an amount of deformation of the measurement target object;
a feature value generation circuit comprising a storage medium configured to store a first mass of the measurement target object and an elastic modulus of the measurement target object, the feature value generation circuit being configured to:
calculate a first force that the user applies to the measurement target object at a specific time, on the basis of the output signal, the first mass, and the elastic modulus; and
generate a feature value on the basis of the output signal, the feature value being a parameter indicating a feature of the swing and including the first force at the specific time; and
a transmitter that is attached to the measurement target object and that is configured to transmit the feature value to an external device by wireless communication or wired communication.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
physical measurements and physical component such as sensor unit, a measurement target object that deforms in response to being swung by a user, the sensor being configured to generate an output signal indicating a relationship between time and a physical quantity related to an amount of deformation of the measurement target object additional , also: a feature value generation circuit comprising a storage medium configured to store a first mass of the measurement target object and an elastic modulus of the measurement target object ARE NOT Integration of a Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application, these are data-gathering limitation, they are necessary data gathering, and does not impose a meaningful limit on the claim .
Furthermore,” a feature value generation circuit comprising a storage medium configured to store a first mass of the measurement target object and an elastic modulus of the measurement target object, the feature value generation circuit being configured to: generate a feature value on the basis of the output signal, the feature value being a parameter indicating a feature of the swing and including the first force at the specific time” amounts to Performing a mental process in a computer environment (feature value generation circuit to generate different feature value) performing generic functions do not recite additional limitations that present a practical application generic computer performing generic functions do not amount to a practical application. The transmitter is just a generic transmitter and not a specific one tied to the abstract idea, and claim just has a functional language that isn’t actually transmitting anything.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see 2019 PEG, Page 55 and MPEP § 2106.05).
Claim 2: to generate the feature value by performing an extraction process on the basis of the output signal.” is Performing a mental process in a computer environment does not amount to a practical application
Claims 3 to 16 all are directed to do the analysis performed in the processor of a computer environment (feature value generation circuit) that are generic and Performing a mental process in a computer environment does not amount to a practical application, and the additional elements which have been claimed as generic elements.
New Claim 17 is eligible because “the transmitter transmits the feature value to an external device by wireless communication or wired communication” is directed to a judicial exception integrated into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(d).
2019 PEG: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
physical measurements and physical component such as sensor unit, a measurement target object that deforms in response to being swung by a user, the sensor being configured to generate an output signal indicating a relationship between time and a physical quantity related to an amount of deformation of the measurement target object additional , are performing generic functions and do not amount to significantly more, and do not recite additional limitations that present a practical application or amount to “significantly more” as they are routine and generic computer performing generic functions do not amount to significantly more. also: a feature value generation circuit comprising a storage medium configured to store a first mass of the measurement target object and an elastic modulus of the measurement target object represent are routine and common computer environment with storage and generic known parameters and well-known, routine, conventional activity.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. They further amount to well-understood, routine, conventional activity.
Therefore, claims 1-16 are ineligible under 35 USC §101, and new claim 17 is eligible.
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 1-2, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta US20210213327A1 in view of Lee, US 20020107085 A1.
Claim 1
Ohta2 teaches:
A sensor unit comprising:
a sensor 20 that is attached to a measurement target object 50 that deforms in response to being swung by a user, the sensor 20 being configured to generate an output signal (signals from strain sensor210, sensors 208,206 ) indicating a relationship between time and a physical quantity related to an amount of deformation of the measurement target object (this is met by any sensor such as strain sensor 210, and sensors 204,206,208 generate output signals are indicating relationship between time and a physical quantity for example fig.12 give it for sensor 208 and sensor 210 is related to the deformation of target object ¶0112);
a feature value generation circuit 202,204 comprising a storage medium204 configured to store a first mass (e.g., ¶0188) of the measurement target object 50 and the feature value generation circuit 202,204 being configured to:
calculate; and generate a feature value on the basis of the output signal (e.g., Abstract: calculates attitude information of the golf club in a swing period, based on the acceleration information and the angular rate information, corrects the attitude information of the golf club at impact, based on the strain information of the shaft), the feature value being a parameter indicating a feature of the swing (all features cited above); and
a transmitter (e.g., 212) that is attached to the measurement target object 50 and that is configured to transmit the feature value to an external device 10 by wireless communication or wired communication (e.g., ¶0056).
Ohta does not specifically teach: an elastic modulus of the measurement target object, calculate a first force that the user applies to the measurement target object at a specific time, on the basis of the output signal, the first mass, and the elastic modulus; the feature value including the first force at the specific time.
However, Ohta teaches calculating swing related feature values of swing of a golf club, although it is not force, it is well known in golf swing analyzing apparatus to calculate different features correlated to force that golfer applies to the shaft to e.g., directly determine clubhead speed—and therefore, maximum distance—while also dictating control, swing efficiency, and the accuracy of the strike. For example:
In the similar field of endeavor, Lee in e.g., figs.7 and 10 teaches:
the sensor 20,21 being configured to generate an output signal (signals from strain sensor20,21) indicating a relationship between time and a physical quantity related to an amount of deformation of the measurement target object (e.g., fig.10 strain and fig.9 force based on time, both related to the deformation ¶0025); a storage medium (48) configured to store an elastic modulus (given in stiffness matrix) of the measurement target object 2, calculate a first force (e.g., ¶0025,0030 fig.7) that the user applies to the measurement target object 2 at a specific time (e.g., fig.9 ¶0074 also fig.8b: step 234), on the basis of the output signal (step 234 from 232: force is calculated from strain measurements/strain gauges continuously sample strain during the swing, the signals are stored in memory after a trigger event, the processor converts each strain sample into forces and moments therefore, a series of strain measurement are converted to a series of force and bending moments), the first mass, and the elastic modulus (elastic modulus correlated force to deformation and also mass are simply physics of calculating force and movements based on deformation3); and including the first force at the specific time (e.g., fig.7 force is related to stress and strains measurements over time as shown in e.g., fig.10); It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Lee‘s feature value generation circuit for Ohta‘s circuit and the modified Ohta’s feature value generation circuit being configured to generate an output signal indicating a relationship between time and a physical quantity related to an amount of deformation of the modified Ohta’s measurement target object; a storage medium configured to store a first mass of the modified Ohta’s measurement target object and an elastic modulus of the modified Ohta’s measurement target object, calculate a first force that user applies to the modified Ohta’s measurement target object at a specific time, on the basis of the modified Ohta’s output signal, the first mass, and the elastic modulus; the modified Ohta’s feature value being a parameter indicating a feature of the swing and including the first force at the specific time. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide an instrumented golf club capable of converting a series of strain measurements to a series of force and bending moments in order to generate a shaft flex profile for a golfer (e.g., Lee’s ¶0030).
Claim 2
Ohta in view of Lee teaches the sensor unit according to claim 1, Ohta teaches wherein the feature value generation circuit 202,204 is configured to generate the feature value by performing an extraction process on the basis of the output signal (this is very broad limitation met by Ohta with identifying the output signal as source and the method or performing operation on that signal as extraction, here to generate features such as attitude information of the golf club in a swing period, on the basis of the acceleration and the angular rate from sensors, also for example fig.12 and related ¶0112,0113 recites extracting and calculating time t1 when the combined angular rate W is less than a reference threshold, back to the time before the impact time by a predetermined amount of time).
Claim 15
Ohta in view of Lee teaches the sensor unit according to claim 1, Ohta teaches wherein the measurement target object is a golf club, a bat (e.g., Abstract).
Claim 16
Ohta in view of Lee teaches the sensor unit according to claim 1, Ohta teaches wherein the feature value has less data than the output signal (Sensor data (raw input signals) generates continuous, high-frequency time-series data for the whole swing, the extracted feature values represent specific, distilled metrics :e.g., impact time, peak acceleration, extracted parameters and key kinematic variables, club attitude at impact, distilled from the raw signals which have a low data volume extracted from those large amount of raw inputs: e.g., continuous time-series streams acceleration, angular rate, and strain over the entire swing which have a high data volume, therefore feature value containing significantly less data).
Claim 17
Ohta in view of Lee teaches the sensor unit according to claim 1, Ohta teaches a transmitter 212 that is attached to the measurement target object 50 transmits the feature value to an external device 10 by wireless communication or wired communication (e.g., ¶0056).
Claims 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta US20210213327A1 in view of Lee, US 20020107085 A1 , in view of Segami4 , US 20190134461 A1.
Claim 6
Ohta in view of Lee teaches the sensor unit according to claim 1, Ohta in e.g., fig.12 teaches wherein the feature value generation circuit 202,204 is further configured to calculate an angular rate information velocity at the specific time on the basis of the output signal, and wherein the feature value further includes the swing velocity at the specific time. (in e.g., fig.12 teaches limitation for velocity and it is obvious variant of swing velocity).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta US20210213327A1 in view of Lee, US 20020107085 A1 and in view of IWAHASHI5 ,JP 2016022308 A .
Claim 3
Ohta in view of Lee teaches the sensor unit according to claim 2, Ohta teaches wherein the measurement target object is a member for hitting a hit target object (golf club is for hitting a ball), but the combination does not specifically teach wherein the feature value generation circuit is configured to extract a hit time when the measurement target object hits the hit target object, on the basis of the output signal, and wherein the feature value further includes the hit time.
In the similar field of endeavor, IWAHASHI in fig.3 teaches: wherein the feature value generation circuit (106) is configured to extract a hit time (308) when the measurement target object (100) hits the hit target object (ball), on the basis of the output signal 304,309, and wherein the feature value further includes the hit time (fig.3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use IWAHASHI‘s feature value generation circuit for the modified Ohta’s feature value generation circuit wherein the modified Ohta’s feature value generation circuit is configured to extract a hit time when the measurement target object hits the hit target object, on the basis of the output signal, and wherein the feature value further includes the hit time as taught by IWASHI. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to know the swing state in golf practice (e.g., background of IWAHASHI)6 .
Claim 5
Ohta in view of Lee sensor unit according to claim 1, but combination does not teach
wherein the feature value generation circuit is further configured to calculate a swing start time on the basis of the output signal, and wherein the feature value further includes the swing start time.
IWAHASHI in e.g., fig.3 teaches wherein the feature value generation circuit is further 106 configured to calculate a swing start time 301,302 on the basis of the output signal (e.g., calculated graph with data 304) and wherein the feature value further includes the swing start time 301,302.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use IWAHASHI‘s feature value generation circuit for the modified Segami’s feature value generation circuit and wherein the modified Segami’s feature value generation circuit is further configured to calculate a swing start time on the basis of the output signal, and wherein the feature value further includes the swing start time as taught by IWAHASHI. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to know the swing state in golf practice (e.g., background of IWAHASHI) .
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta US20210213327A1 in view of Lee, US 20020107085 A1 and In view of IWAHASHI-2 , US 20100304877 A1 .
Claim 8
Ohta in view of Lee teaches the sensor unit according to claim 1, Ohta further teaches
wherein the measurement target object is a member for hitting a hit target object (a golf club of cited in ¶0195 reads on this limitation), but the combination does not specifically teach wherein the feature value generation circuit is further configured to calculate a hit position at which the measurement target object hits the hit target object, on the basis of the output signal and the first mass, and wherein the feature value further includes the hit position.
IWAHASHI-2 teaches wherein the feature value generation circuit 54, 54A, 122 is further configured to calculate a hit position (using 1,50) at which the measurement target object 2 hits the hit target object (ball hit by 101), on the basis of the output signal 110,127, and wherein the feature value further includes the hit position (hitting points given e.g., fig.6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use IWAHASHI-2‘s feature value generation circuit for the modified Segami‘s feature value generation circuit wherein the modified Segami’s feature value generation circuit is further configured to calculate a hit position at which the measurement target object hits the hit target object, on the basis of the output signal and the first mass, and wherein the feature value further includes the hit position. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to replace a cost effective method(e.g., IWAHASHI-2 ¶0007).
Claim 9
Ohta in view of Lee and IWAHASHI-2 teaches the sensor unit according to claim 8, IWAHASHI-2 further teaches wherein the feature value generation circuit is further configured to: extract a hit time (e.g., fig.5 128) when the measurement target object hits the hit target object (¶0276), on the basis of the output signal (127); therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use IWAHASHI-2‘s feature value generation circuit for the modified Ohta‘s feature value generation circuit extract a hit time when the modified Ohta‘s measurement target object hits the hit target object, on the basis of the modified Ohta‘s output signal; calculate a swing velocity at the hit time; and calculate a second force to which the user is subjected at the hit time, on the basis of the modified Ohta‘s output signal, the modified Ohta‘s swing velocity, the modified Ohta‘s hit position, and the first mass, and wherein the modified Ohta‘s feature value further includes the second force at the hit time for the same reason and motivation as cited above.
Examiner adds that the second force is interpreted obvious variant or reaction to a first force that the user applies to the measurement target object at a specific time from hit target object, already taught by the modified Ohta‘s feature value generation circuit.
Claim 10
Ohta in view of Lee and IWAHASHI-2 teaches the sensor unit according to claim 9, IWAHASHI-2 teaches wherein the feature value generation circuit is further configured to determine a state of the swing after the hit time 128 on the basis of the output signal 127 and therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use IWAHASHI-2‘s feature value generation circuit for the modified Ohta‘s feature value generation circuit wherein the feature value generation circuit is further configured to determine a state of the swing after the hit time on the basis of the modified Ohta‘s output signal and the second force at the hit time, and wherein the modified Ohta‘s feature value further includes a result of the determination for the same reason and motivation as cited above.
Claim 11
Ohta in view of Lee and IWAHASHI-2 teaches the sensor unit according to claim 8, IWAHASHI-2 further teaches wherein the feature value generation circuit is further configured to: extract a hit time 128 when the measurement target object 2 hits the hit target object, on the basis of the output signal 127; and It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use IWAHASHI-2‘s feature value generation circuit for the modified Ohta‘s feature value generation circuit and wherein the modified Ohta‘s feature value generation circuit is further configured to: extract a hit time when the modified Ohta‘s measurement target object hits the hit target object, on the basis of the modified Ohta‘s output signal; calculate a swing velocity at the hit time; and calculate an initial velocity of the hit target object or a direction of movement of the hit target object on the basis of the modified Ohta‘s output signal, the modified Ohta‘s swing velocity at the hit time, the hit position, for the same reason and motivation cited above.
Regarding “wherein the storage medium is further configured to store a second mass of the hit target object, and “and the second mass, and wherein the feature value further includes the initial velocity or the direction of movement.” Examiner notes that the second force and second mass of hit target object are interpreted obvious variant as second force is reaction to a first force that the user applies to the measurement target object at a specific time from hit target object to the second mass, already taught by the modified Ohta‘s feature value generation circuit.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta US20210213327A1 in view of Lee, US 20020107085 A1 and In view of and ASHIDA JP H11178953 A.
Claim 4
Ohta in view of Lee teaches sensor unit according to claim 1, but the combination does not teach
wherein the feature value generation circuit is further configured to calculate an amount of bend of the measurement target object at the specific time on the basis of the output signal, and
wherein the feature value includes the amount of bend of the measurement target object at the specific time.
In the similar field of endeavor, ASHIDA in e.g., fig.2 teaches wherein the feature value generation circuit is further configured to calculate an amount of bend of the measurement target object at the specific time on the basis of the output signal, and wherein the feature value includes the amount of bend of the measurement target object at the specific time (angular velocity creates the forces that cause the shaft to deflect or bend). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ASHIDA‘s feature value generation circuit for the modified Ohta’s feature value generation circuit wherein the modified Ohta’s feature value generation circuit is further configured to calculate an amount of bend of the measurement target object at the specific time on the basis of the output signal, and wherein the feature value includes the amount of bend of the measurement target object at the specific time . One of ordinary skill in the art knows impact portion is deformed into various forms and is particular importance is the ability of the club head to move just before impact and achieve the correct impact, and the role of the shaft is of utmost importance as characteristics relating to the bending behavior of the shaft cannot be neglected (ASHIDA ¶0002) and would have been motivated to make this modification in order to properly verify the degree of correlation with the bending behavior of the shaft during an actual swing, and it is only a research level (ASHIDA ¶0004).
Claim 13
Ohta in view of Lee teaches the sensor unit according to claim 1, but the combination does not teach wherein a shape of the measurement target object extends in a first direction.
ADISH in e.g., fig.2 teaches wherein a shape of the measurement target object (bending object 2a) extends in a first direction (direction x)7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ASHIDA‘s object for the modified Ohta’s object wherein a shape of the measurement target object extends in a first direction.. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to determine bending behavior of shaft which correlates to swing features (Abstract of ASHIDA).
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta US20210213327A1 in view of Lee, US 20020107085 A1 and In view of Iizuka, 20230381614 A1, and SAKIDA8 JP H10272216 A.
Claim 7
Ohta in view of Lee sensor unit according to claim 1, Ohta teaches wherein a shape of the measurement target object extends in a first direction (this function is met by any swung measurement target object) but the combination does not specifically teach
wherein the sensor is configured to detect twisting of the measurement target object about the first direction,
wherein the feature value generation circuit is further configured to calculate a time when the user rolls a wrist of the user, on the basis of the output signal, and wherein the feature value further includes the time when the user rolls the wrist.
Regarding limitation 1
In the similar field of endeavor, Iizuka teaches a sensor the sensor 110 is configured to detect twisting of the measurement target object 201 about the first direction(¶0032).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Iizuka‘s sensor for the modified Ohta’s device wherein the sensor is configured to detect twisting of the measurement target object about the first direction . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to directly determine its influence on accuracy, shot shape, and the subjective feel of the club.
Regarding limitation 2
In the similar field of endeavor, SAKIDA in figs.2 and 7 teaches wherein the feature value generation circuit 4 is further configured to calculate a time when the user rolls a wrist of the user, on the basis of the output signal, and wherein the feature value further includes the time when the user rolls the wrist (see citations related to figs.2 and 7 that from signals Sa on axis G and all actions including rolling wrist by user in different times).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use SAKIDA‘s feature value generation circuit for the modified Ohta’s feature value generation circuit wherein the feature value generation circuit is further configured to calculate a time when the user rolls a wrist of the user, on the basis of the output signal, and wherein the feature value further includes the time when the user rolls the wrist. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a swing diagnostic apparatus for suitable for practicing wrist movement (¶0001 SAKIDA).
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta US20210213327A1 in view of Lee, US 20020107085 A1and Ho, US 20220032143 A1.
Claim 12
Ohta in view of Lee teaches the sensor unit according to claim 1, the combination does not teach wherein the storage medium is further configured to store a feature value for each of a plurality of different swings, wherein the feature value generation circuit is further configured to calculate, on the basis of the plurality of feature values, a variation among the plurality of different swings, and wherein the feature value further includes the variation.
In the similar field of endeavor, Ho in figs.7B-7F teaches wherein the storage medium 209 is further configured to store a feature value for each of a plurality of different swings 741-745, wherein the feature value generation circuit 340 is further configured to calculate, on the basis of the plurality of feature values (e.g., ¶0036), a variation among the plurality of different swings, and wherein the feature value further includes the variation (e.g., ¶0036¶0045).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Ho‘s storage medium and feature value generation circuit for the modified Ohta‘s feature value generation circuit wherein the modified Ohta’s storage medium is further configured to store a feature value for each of a plurality of different swings, wherein the feature value generation circuit is further configured to calculate, on the basis of the plurality of feature values, a variation among the plurality of different swings, and wherein the feature value further includes the variation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to determine the measurable changes in a player's movements or shot results across multiple swings.
Claim 12 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta US20210213327A1 in view of Lee, US 20020107085 A1, and HAGIWARA9, JP 2017086164 A.
Claim 12
Ohta in view of Lee teaches the sensor unit according to claim 1, the combination does not teach wherein the storage medium is further configured to store a feature value for each of a plurality of different swings, wherein the feature value generation circuit is further configured to calculate, on the basis of the plurality of feature values, a variation among the plurality of different swings, and wherein the feature value further includes the variation.
In the similar field of endeavor, HAGIWARA in e.g., fig.8 teaches wherein the storage medium 20,30 is further configured to store a feature value for each of a plurality of different swings, wherein the feature value generation circuit is further configured to calculate, on the basis of the plurality of feature values (e.g., see citations directed to figs.8-16), a variation among the plurality of different swings, and wherein the feature value further includes the variation (e.g., see all citations directed to variation).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use HAGIWARA ‘s storage medium and feature value generation circuit for the modified Ohta’s‘s feature value generation circuit wherein the modified Ohta’s storage medium is further configured to store a feature value for each of a plurality of different swings, wherein the feature value generation circuit is further configured to calculate, on the basis of the plurality of feature values, a variation among the plurality of different swings, and wherein the feature value further includes the variation as taught by HAGIWARA. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to determine the measurable changes in a player's movements or shot results across multiple swings.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta US20210213327A1 in view of Lee, US 20020107085 A1, and In view of and Sato, US 20090247312 A1.
Claim 14
Ohta in view of Lee teaches the sensor unit according to claim 1, the combination does not teach sensor unit according to claim 1, wherein the feature value generation circuit is attached to the measurement target object.
In the similar field of endeavor, Sato in figs.1-6 teaches wherein the feature value generation circuit 100 is attached to the measurement target object (shaft 100,200).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Sato‘s circuit for the modified Ohta’s circuit wherein the modified Otha’s feature value generation circuit is attached to the measurement target object. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to accurately capture critical swing dynamics without significantly altering the club's balance, weight, or the golfer's natural feel and performance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(Ohta-2)10 , Ohta, Ken, Yuji Ohgi, and Kazuhiro Shibuya. "Dealing with stiffness: shaft dynamics in the golf swing." Procedia Engineering 72 (2014): 298-303”.
(Ohta-2) teaches: an elastic modulus of the measurement target object (E), calculate a first force (M from force) that the user applies to the measurement target object (club) at a specific time (e.g., figs.4-5), on the basis of the output signal11 (measurements from strain or deflection used in Eq.11), the first mass (the physics of these model needs to know mass to determine the equation of deflection from force), and the elastic modulus (E); the feature value including the first force at the specific time (inverse dynamics, time varying shaft loading, dynamic simulation through swing, dynamic loading during swing means force at specific time is required).
Milne “ Milne, Ronald D., and John P. Davis. "The role of the shaft in the golf swing." Journal of biomechanics 25.9 (1992): 975-983.”
Millne teaches deriving shaft dynamics from beam theory using measurement of strain on the shaft and treats shaft as an elastic member with distributed stiffness, key mechanical relation underling the paper is based on measurements of strain that is correlated to moment via E.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatemeh E. Nia whose telephone number is (469)295-9187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 4:00 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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/FATEMEH ESFANDIARI NIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 Lee was presented to Applicant during interview and also was presented in interview summary
2 Prior art of record
3 See for example Ohta-2 cited in the conclusion as an evidence. Ohta, Ken, Yuji Ohgi, and Kazuhiro Shibuya. "Dealing with stiffness: shaft dynamics in the golf swing." Procedia Engineering 72 (2014): 298-303”.
4 Prior art of record
5 Prior art of record
6 Citation: “ In golf practice, it has long been more important to know the swing state.”
7 Based on the specification in ¶0034 of PG-PUB and fig.2 discloses: “The measurement target object 1 becomes deformed, for example, in the rightward-leftward direction at the time of the swing by the user. In this embodiment, the shape of the measurement target object 1 includes a shape that extends in the upward-downward direction (first direction).” Therefore, it is interpreted any shaft swing in right and left create extension of shape in the shaft direction.
8 Prior art of record
9 Prior art of record
10 Modeling shaft as an elastic beam at every time instant t which shaft curvature changes (e.g., fig.5), strain, bending moment, and equivalent force changes,
11 Ohta -2 relies on measurement of shaft deformation, underlying literature commonly uses strain gauges mounted directly on the shaft.
Prosecution Insights