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 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, 3-11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd et al (US 2013/0267338) in view of Katayama (US 6,042,483).
Claim 1: The combination of Boyd & Katayama teaches a system comprising a remote device(Boyd Element 400; Figure 6A-7B) and a sporting apparatus having a longitudinal axis and comprising a first monitoring device and a second monitoring device, the first monitoring device and second monitoring device being spaced apart relative to the longitudinal axis and secured to the sporting apparatus (-sensors portioned at the club head, club shaft and club grip- Boyd Figure 1, 5E, 8, 9; Paragraphs [0113]-[0114], [0179]), the first monitoring device configured to transmit data corresponding to a swing of the sporting apparatus to the remote device and second monitoring device configured to transmit data corresponding to the swing of the sporting apparatus to the remote device (Boyd Figure 7A; Paragraph [0131]), the system configured to:
determine which of the first monitoring device and the second monitoring device is, during a first portion of the swing of the sporting apparatus, transmitting data most reflective of the first portion of the swing of the sporting apparatus (Boyd Paragraphs [0254], [0256] [0263], [0272]-[0278]);
capture the data most reflective of the first portion of the swing of the sporting apparatus (-as modified below- Boyd Paragraphs [0254], [0256] [0263], [0272]-[0278]);
determine which of the first monitoring device and the second monitoring device is, during a second portion of the swing of the sporting apparatus, transmitting data most reflective of the second portion of the swing of the sporting apparatus (Boyd Paragraphs [0254], [0256] [0263], [0272]-[0278]);
capture the data most reflective of the second portion of the swing of the sporting apparatus (-as modified below- Boyd Paragraphs [0254], [0256] [0263], [0272]-[0278]); and
accumulate the data most reflective of the first portion of the swing of the sporting apparatus with the data most reflective of the second portion of the swing of the sporting apparatus (Katayama Figures 1, 3-5; Col 4:4-5:13).
Boyd teaches the invention as cited above including the selection of data based on the determination that one set of monitoring data from one monitoring device more accurate captures a swing than monitoring data provided by other devices (Boyd Paragraphs [0254], [0256] [0263], [0272]-[0278]). While Boyd arguably does not teach the selection and combination of data occurring during different parts of the same sports event using different monitoring devices and accumulating/combining that data, in an analogous invention concerning capturing the motion of a golf ball Katayama teaches that these features were known at the time of invention (Katayama Figures 1, 3-5; Col 4:4-5:13). 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 selection and combination of data occurring during different parts of the same sports event using different monitoring devices and accumulating/combining that data as taught by Katayama in the invention Boyd, because such would have provided the expected and predictable result of leveraging the respective monitor/sensor data available during each discrete phase of the golf swing.
Claim 3: The combination of Boyd & Katayama teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first monitoring device is configured to transmit the data most reflective of the first portion of the swing of the sporting apparatus, and the second monitoring device is configured to transmit the data most reflective of the second portion of the swing of the sporting apparatus (-Describing the monitoring of the swing path and selection of monitoring devices at discrete points therein as modified- Boyd Paragraphs [0254], [0256] [0263], [0272]-[0278] & Katayama Figures 1, 3-5; Col 4:4-5:13).
Claim 4: The combination of Boyd & Katayama teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first monitoring device is secured to the sporting apparatus at a proximal end thereof, and the second monitoring device is secured to the sporting apparatus at a distal end thereof (-sensors portioned at the club head and club grip- Boyd Figure 1, 5E, 8, 9; Paragraphs [0113]-[0114], [0179]).
Claim 5: The combination of Boyd & Katayama teaches the system of claim 1, comprising one or more additional monitoring devices, wherein the first monitoring device, the second monitoring device, and the one or more additional monitoring devices are substantially equally spaced along the longitudinal axis of the sporting apparatus (-sensors portioned at the club head, club shaft and club grip- Boyd Figure 1, 5E, 8, 9; Paragraphs [0113]-[0114], [0179]).
Claim 6: The combination of Boyd & Katayama teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first monitoring device is located near an area of impact of the sporting apparatus (-sensor portioned at the club head - Boyd Figure 1, 5E, 8, 9; Paragraphs [0113]-[0114], [0179]).
Claim 7: The combination of Boyd & Katayama teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising displaying a path of motion based on the accumulated data most reflective of the first portion of the swing of the sporting apparatus with the data most reflective of the second portion of the swing of the sporting apparatus (Boyd Paragraphs [0101], [0149]-[0150]).
Claim 8: The combination of Boyd & Katayama teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the second portion of the swing is post-impact path of the swing (-Wherein the full swing is captured including post impact portions-Boyd Paragraphs [0101], [0149]-[0150]; Figures 19A, 27).
Claim 9: The combination of Boyd & Katayama teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first monitoring device is secured to the sporting apparatus near a club head of the sporting apparatus, wherein the sporting apparatus comprises a golf club (-sensor portioned at the club head - Boyd Figure 1, 5E, 8, 9; Paragraphs [0113]-[0114], [0179]).
Claim 10: The combination of Boyd & Katayama teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the sporting apparatus comprises a ball (Katayama Figures 1, 3-5; Col 4:4-5:13).
Claim 11: The combination of Boyd & Katayama teaches a remote device comprising:
one or more processors(Boyd Figure 6B; Element 402), and
memory coupled with the one or more processors, the memory comprising executable instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors (Boyd Figure 6B; Elements 402, 404; Paragraphs [0145], [0147], [0241]) to effectuate operations comprising:
determine which of a first monitoring device and a second monitoring device is, during a first portion of a swing of a sporting apparatus, transmitting data most reflective of the first portion of the swing of the sporting apparatus (Boyd Paragraphs [0254], [0256] [0263], [0272]-[0278]);
capture the data most reflective of the first portion of the swing of the sporting apparatus (-as modified below- Boyd Paragraphs [0254], [0256] [0263], [0272]-[0278]);
determine which of the first monitoring device and the second monitoring device is, during a second portion of the swing of the sporting apparatus, transmitting data most reflective of the second portion of the swing of the sporting apparatus (Boyd Paragraphs [0254], [0256] [0263], [0272]-[0278]);
capture the data most reflective of the second portion of the swing of the sporting apparatus (-as modified below- Boyd Paragraphs [0254], [0256] [0263], [0272]-[0278]); and
accumulate the data most reflective of the first portion of the swing of the sporting apparatus with the data most reflective of the second portion of the swing of the sporting apparatus (Katayama Figures 1, 3-5; Col 4:4-5:13).
Boyd teaches the invention as cited above including the selection of data based on the determination that one set of monitoring data from one monitoring device more accurate captures a swing than monitoring data provided by other devices (Boyd Paragraphs [0254], [0256] [0263], [0272]-[0278]). While Boyd arguably does not teach the selection and combination of data occurring during different parts of the same sports event using different monitoring devices and accumulating/combining that data, in an analogous invention concerning capturing the motion of a golf ball Katayama teaches that these features were known at the time of invention (Katayama Figures 1, 3-5; Col 4:4-5:13). 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 selection and combination of data occurring during different parts of the same sports event using different monitoring devices and accumulating/combining that data as taught by Katayama in the invention Boyd, because such would have provided the expected and predictable result of leveraging the respective monitor/sensor data available during each discrete phase of the golf swing.
Claim 13: The combination of Boyd & Katayama teaches the remote device of claim 11, wherein the first monitoring device is configured to transmit the data most reflective of the first portion of the swing of the sporting apparatus, and the second monitoring device is configured to transmit the data most reflective of the second portion of the swing of the sporting apparatus (-Describing the monitoring of the swing path and selection of monitoring devices at discrete points therein as modified- Boyd Paragraphs [0254], [0256] [0263], [0272]-[0278] & Katayama Figures 1, 3-5; Col 4:4-5:13). .
Claim 14: The combination of Boyd & Katayama teaches the remote device of claim 11, wherein the first monitoring device is secured to the sporting apparatus at a proximal end thereof, and the second monitoring device is secured to the sporting apparatus at a distal end thereof (-sensors portioned at the club head and club grip- Boyd Figure 1, 5E, 8, 9; Paragraphs [0113]-[0114], [0179]).
Claim 15: The combination of Boyd & Katayama teaches the remote device of claim 11, wherein the first monitoring device is located near an area of impact of the sporting apparatus (-sensor portioned at the club head - Boyd Figure 1, 5E, 8, 9; Paragraphs [0113]-[0114], [0179]).
Claim 16: The combination of Boyd & Katayama teaches the remote device of claim 11, further operations comprising transmit for a display a path of motion based on the accumulated data most reflective of the first portion of the swing of the sporting apparatus with the data most reflective of the second portion of the swing of the sporting apparatus (Boyd Paragraphs [0101], [0149]-[0150]).
Claim 17: The combination of Boyd & Katayama teaches the remote device of claim 11, wherein the first portion of the swing is a pre- impact path of the swing (-Wherein the full swing is captured including pre impact portions-Boyd Paragraphs [0101], [0149]-[0150]; Figures 19A, 27).
Claim 18: The combination of Boyd & Katayama teaches the remote device of claim 11, wherein the second portion of the swing is post-impact path of the swing (-Wherein the full swing is captured including post impact portions-Boyd Paragraphs [0101], [0149]-[0150]; Figures 19A, 27).
Claim 19: The combination of Boyd & Katayama teaches a method comprising:
determining which of a first monitoring device and a second monitoring device is, during a first portion of a swing of a sporting apparatus, transmitting data most reflective of the first portion of the swing of the sporting apparatus (Boyd Paragraphs [0254], [0256] [0263], [0272]-[0278]);
capturing the data most reflective of the first portion of the swing of the sporting apparatus (-as modified below- Boyd Paragraphs [0254], [0256] [0263], [0272]-[0278]);
determining which of the first monitoring device and the second monitoring device is, during a second portion of the swing of the sporting apparatus, transmitting data most reflective of the second portion of the swing of the sporting apparatus (Boyd Paragraphs [0254], [0256] [0263], [0272]-[0278]);
capturing the data most reflective of the second portion of the swing of the sporting apparatus (-as modified below- Boyd Paragraphs [0254], [0256] [0263], [0272]-[0278]); and
accumulating the data most reflective of the first portion of the swing of the sporting apparatus with the data most reflective of the second portion of the swing of the sporting apparatus (Katayama Figures 1, 3-5; Col 4:4-5:13).
Boyd teaches the invention as cited above including the selection of data based on the determination that one set of monitoring data from one monitoring device more accurate captures a swing than monitoring data provided by other devices (Boyd Paragraphs [0254], [0256] [0263], [0272]-[0278]). While Boyd arguably does not teach the selection and combination of data occurring during different parts of the same sports event using different monitoring devices and accumulating/combining that data, in an analogous invention concerning capturing the motion of a golf ball Katayama teaches that these features were known at the time of invention (Katayama Figures 1, 3-5; Col 4:4-5:13). 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 selection and combination of data occurring during different parts of the same sports event using different monitoring devices and accumulating/combining that data as taught by Katayama in the invention Boyd, because such would have provided the expected and predictable result of leveraging the respective monitor/sensor data available during each discrete phase of the golf swing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 2nd, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Commencing on pages 7-8 of the Applicant’s above dated remarks the Applicant proposes that the “determine which of the first monitoring device and the second monitoring device is, during a first portion of the swing of the sporting apparatus, transmitting data most reflective of the first portion of the swing of the sporting apparatus” and “determine which of the first monitoring device and the second monitoring device is, during a second portion of the swing of the sporting apparatus, transmitting data most reflective of the second portion of the swing of the sporting apparatus” claim elements are taught by paragraphs [0067] & [0069] of the Applicant’s specification wherein the claimed determination is described as the selection of monitoring data based on known defined swing portions and the detection cessation of head vibration and/or wobble (Paragraphs [0066], [0067], [0069]).
In view of the definition of determination, the rejection of claims under 35 USC §112 1st paragraph is withdrawn.
Continuing on page 8, the Applicant presents that the rejection of claim 10 under 35 USC §112 2nd, paragraph has been addressed through claim amendment.
In view of the presented amendment of claim 10, the rejection of this claims under 35 USC §112 2nd, paragraph is withdrawn.
Further Continuing on pages 8-12, the Applicant presents that the combination of Boyd and Katayama fails to teach the claim invention because the Boyd only teaches the selection of data based on the determination that one set of monitoring data from one monitoring device more accurate captures a swing than monitoring data provided by other devices but does not teach the selection and combination of data occurring during different parts of the same sports event using different monitoring devices. Additionally, while the Applicant’s notes that the rejection of record relies on the secondary teachings of Katayama to teach this feature proposes that the same while concerning the same sport field (golf) is concerned with monitoring the motion of a golf ball utilizing cameras rather than a golf club utilizing sensors.
The Applicant’s proposition that Boyd only teaches the selection of data based on the determination that one set of monitoring data from one monitoring device more accurate captures a swing than monitoring data provided by other devices but does not teach the selection and combination of data occurring during different parts of the same sports event using different monitoring devices, reflects the identified difference between the prior art of Boyd and the claimed invention noted in the rejection of claims, wherein the rejection relies upon the secondary teaching of Katayama that when considered in combination with Boyd support the conclusion that this feature including the determination which sensor provides the most accurate results based on known correlation would have been obvious in view of the teachings of the prior art combination.
To the extent the Applicant arguments may be understood as to propose that Katayama to teach this feature is non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the reference of Katayama and Boyd are both in the field of capturing the movement of sports equipment and both as noted involve the same common sport of golf and according is in a common field as the inventor’s endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned.
To the extent that the Applicant’s arguments may be understood to imply that the test of obviousness requires the bodily incorporation of Katayama into the reference of Boyd the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
To the extent that the Applicant’s arguments maybe understood to propose that the prior art utilizes different sensor technologies (i.e camera verse motion sensors) and that would teach away from the combination as presented, there it has not been established that the use of monitoring devices for capturing different part of the swing as taught by Katayama wouldn’t be applicable to the use of multiple sensor types as taught by Boyd, particularly wherein Boyd notes that different sensors more accurately collect certain types of motion. Additionally, "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In view of the preceding the rejection of claims is respectfully maintained as presented herein above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
