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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 3 ends in “;” and not “.” For purpose of compact prosecution, examiner is interpreting claim 3 to end in a “.” Instead of “;”. Appropriate correction is required in response.
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 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 shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sajima (US 2007/0075891 A1) in view of Asghar et al (US 2019/0391254 A1).
Claim 1. Sajima discloses a golf ball launch monitor comprising:
a plurality of radar receive antennas [0008], [0032]-[0033], (Fig. 2);
a plurality of radar transmit antennas [0008], [0032]-[0033], (Fig. 2);
a processor coupled to the plurality of radar receive antennas and the plurality of radar transmit antennas (Fig. 1), wherein the processor is configured to process radar signals from the plurality of radar receive antennas to estimate one or more golf ball trajectory parameters [0026];
wherein the plurality of radar receive antennas and the plurality of radar transmit antennas are arranged in an array (Fig. 2).
Sajima does not but Asghar discloses wherein the processor is configured to process the radar signals from the radar receive antennas with a deep-learning program without pre-defined functional relationships between characteristics of the radar signals from the radar receive antennas and the golf ball trajectory parameters [0019]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Sajima with Asghar and would have been motivated to do so to improve the processing speed and efficiency of the systems.
Claim 2. Sajima and Asghar discloses the golf ball launch monitor of claim 1, wherein the plurality of receive antennas are arranged symmetrically around a longitudinal axis; Sajima [0030].
Claim 3. Sajima and Asghar discloses the golf ball launch monitor of claim 1 comprising: a continuous wave radar transmitter; and a frequency modulated continuous wave radar transmitter; Sajima [0094] or Asghar [0021].
Claim 4. Sajima and Asghar discloses the launch monitor of claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to estimate a distance between a struck golf ball and the launch monitor based at least in part on the signals transmitted by the frequency modulated continuous wave radar transmitter; Sajima [0039] or Asghar (Fig. 7), [0085], [0101].
Claim 5. Sajima and Asghar discloses the launch monitor of claim 4, wherein the distance corresponds to a carry distance of the golf ball; Sajima [0039] or Asghar (Fig. 7), [0085], [0101].
Claim 6-9. Sajima and Asghar discloses the launch monitor of claim 1, and one of ordinary skilled in the art can recognize that the system of Sajima can comprise four radar receive antennas or two radar transmit antennas, wherein the four radar receive antennas are positioned symmetrically around a longitudinal axis, wherein the two radar transmit antennas are positioned non-symmetrically around the longitudinal axis as such configuration would increase the accuracy of measurements of the ball [0030]-[0032].
Claim 10. Sajima and Asghar discloses the launch monitor of claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to estimate club speed and ball speed based at least in part on the signals transmitted by the continuous wave radar transmitter; Sajima [0094] or Asghar [0081].
Claim 12. Sajima and Asghar discloses the launch monitor of claim 3, wherein the continuous wave radar transmitter and the frequency modulated continuous wave radar transmitter are operated sequentially in a time division manner; Sajima [0056], [0095].
Claim 13. Sajima and Asghar discloses the launch monitor of claim 3, wherein the plurality of receivers are operated simultaneously to receive both the continuous wave transmitter Doppler signal and the frequency modulated continuous wave radar transmitter Doppler signal; Asghar [0017].
Claim 14. Sajima and Asghar discloses the launch monitor of claim 3, wherein the frequency modulated continuous wave radar transmitter is configured for linear modulation; Sajima [0095] or Asghar [0086].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sajima and Asghar as applied above and further in view of Johnson et al (US 2016/0339320 A1).
Claim 11. Sajima and Asghar discloses the launch monitor of claim 3, but does not expressly disclose wherein the processor is configured to estimate golf ball spin rate and spin axis based at least in part on the signals transmitted by the continuous wave radar transmitter. Johnson discloses wherein the processor is configured to estimate golf ball spin rate and spin axis based at least in part on the signals transmitted by the continuous wave radar transmitter [0002]-[004]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sajima with Johnson and would have been motivated to do so to more accurately measure the spin rate of the golf ball.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 18-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,311,789 B2 and claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,844,990 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both are claiming similar invention relating to at least a golf ball launch monitor comprising: a plurality of radar receive antennas; a plurality of radar transmit antennas; a processor coupled to the plurality of radar receive antennas and the plurality of radar transmit antennas, wherein the processor is configured to process radar signals from the plurality of radar receive antennas to estimate one or more golf ball trajectory parameters; wherein the plurality of radar receive antennas and the plurality of radar transmit antennas are arranged in an array; and, wherein the processor is configured to process the radar signals from the radar receive antennas with a deep-learning program without pre-defined functional relationships between characteristics of the radar signals from the radar receive antennas and the golf ball trajectory parameters.
Filing of New or Amended Claims
The examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the original disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. See Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263, 191 USPQ at 97 (“[T]he PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). However, when filing an amendment an applicant should show support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims. See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 (“Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”). Please see MPEP 2163 (II) 3. (b)
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SENG H LIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3301. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Lewis can be reached on (571) 272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Seng H Lim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715