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 .
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The Examiner notes that it has been held that a recitation that a structural element is "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to” perform a function does not limit the claim to a particular structure and thus only requires the ability to so perform the function. (See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. See also, MPEP 2111.04) As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and the prior art, the recitations of "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to” will be deemed met by an element in the prior art capable of performing the function recited in connection with "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to”. The examiner is aware of the functional language in various claims.
Disclaimer
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 11-17 and withdrawal of claims 1-10 and 18-21 in the reply filed on 6/5/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability should not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beach et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0069548) in view of Niegowski et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2011/0230985).
Regarding claim 11, Beach discloses a golf club fitting system comprising launch monitor (160) for capturing golf shot characteristics and computing device (200) having processor (210), memory (220,224), display (254), and application (214) for receiving and processing golf-shot data. Beach further teaches fitting process (500), including capturing club specifications at (530), and providing a golf club fitting recommendations (540) based on the captured golf shot characteristics. Beach does not expressly teach plotting the ball flight data for each shot onto a virtual golf hole to generate corresponding hole position data. Niegowski teaches collecting ball flight information (S2008 as shown in Figure 20) and sending the information to a golf data hub (S2010 as shown in Figure 20). Niegowski further teaches ball flight information including launch speed, launch angle, spin, final distance, downrange distance, deviation from center, apex height, hang time, impact angle, and impact offset (Figure 22), and displaying shot paths/positions relative to a golf hole representation, as disclosed in Figure 15C. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Niegowski’s golf hole based plotting of ball flight information into Beach fitting system such that processor (210/applications 214) plot the ball flight information captured by launch monitor (160) onto virtual golf holes and determine corresponding ball positions, and to use such position information in providing the fitting recommendation (540), because doing so would permit the measured performance of a candidate club to be evaluated in the context of golf hole playing conditions and thereby provide additional useful information for Beach’s golf club fitting determination.
Regarding claim 12, Beach teaches display (254) and process (600), including capturing user data (620) integrating the data (630), and displaying the integrated data (640). Niegowski further teaches displaying golf shot paths and resulting positions relative to a golf hole representation, as shown in Figure 15C. It would have been obvious to display the virtual golf holes and corresponding hole position data using Beach’s display (254) to visually communicate the results of the golf shot analysis to the golfer/fitter.
Regarding claim 13, both Beach and Niegowski teach capturing detailed ball flight characteristics and determining/displaying resulting golf shot positions relative to a golf hole environment. Niegowski specifically collects ball flight information (S2008), including launch and trajectory related parameters as shown in Figure 22. It would have been obvious to configure Beach’s processor (210/applications 214) to apply the captured ball flight characteristics to each virtual golf hole to simulate the resulting ball position thereon, because determining the resulting position is a predictable use of the measured ball flight data when evaluating a golf shot in a simulated golf hole environment.
Regarding claim 14, Beach teaches analyzing measured golf shot performance to provide the fitting recommendation (540), while Niegowski teaches maintaining and analyzing golf performance information including golf course, round, score, swing, and equipment data, as illustrated in Figure 24. It would have been obvious to quantitatively evaluate the resulting hole positions by determining the expected number of shots required to finish the hole from the respective positions and comparing those values to obtain a relative performance or strokes gained value, because such comparison provides an objective measure of the effect of the respective shot positions on golf performance and would facilitate Beach’s determination of the better performing golf club.
Regarding claim 15, Beach teaches capturing club specifications (520), golf shot/user data (530), and providing a golf club recommendation (540), while Niegowski teaches associating swing and ball flight information with particular golf equipment and storing equipment data together with swing and performance data. It would have been obvious to repeat the disclosed measurement, plotting, and performance analysis operations for a second golf club and calculate corresponding performance/strokes gained values because evaluating multiple candidate clubs under the same conditions would permit meaningful comparison and selection of the better performing club.
Regarding claim 16, Beach expressly teaches providing a golf club fitting recommendation (540) based upon captured golf club and golf shot information. In view of the performance evaluation discussed regarding claims 14-15, it would have been obvious to configure processor (210/applications 214) to generate a second club recommendation based upon the calculated performance/strokes gained values because such values objectively indicate the expected performance of the second club and therefore provide a suitable basis for Beach’s fitting recommendation. It would have been obvious to plot ball flight data for both first and second candidate clubs onto the same virtual golf holes, determine respective resulting positions, compare the resulting performance values, and generate the second club recommendation based thereon because evaluation of candidate clubs under common simulated playing conditions would predictably identify the club proving superior expected performance.
Regarding claim 17, Beach teaches receiving and analyzing golf shot information to recommend golf equipment, and Niegowski teaches collecting detailed ball flight information (S2008), associating golf performance with equipment, and displaying golf shot results relative to golf hole representation.
Conclusion
The following are suggested formats for either a Certificate of Mailing or Certificate of Transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). The certification may be included with all correspondence concerning this application or proceeding to establish a date of mailing or transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). Proper use of this procedure will result in such communication being considered as timely if the established date is within the required period for reply. The Certificate should be signed by the individual actually depositing or transmitting the correspondence or by an individual who, upon information and belief, expects the correspondence to be mailed or transmitted in the normal course of business by another no later than the date indicated.
Certificate of Mailing
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the United States Postal Service with sufficient postage as first class mail in an envelope addressed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
on __________.
(Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
________________________________________________________
Signature: ______________________________________
Certificate of Transmission by Facsimile
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being facsimile transmitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Fax No. (___)_____ -_________ on _____________. (Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
_________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________
Certificate of Transmission via USPTO Patent Electronic Filing System
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being transmitted via the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent electronic filing system to the USPTO
on _____________.
(Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
_________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________
Please refer to 37 CFR 1.6(a)(4), 1.6(d) and 1.8(a)(2) for filing limitations concerning transmissions via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, facsimile transmissions and mailing, respectively.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINI F LEGESSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4412. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday 9 AM - 5:30 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, Nicholas J. Weiss can be reached at (571) 207-1775. 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.
/NINI F LEGESSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights