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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 6/19/26. These drawings are accepted by the examiner.
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 shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (AU-2020200537A1) in view of Perham et al. (US 5,667,447) (hereafter Perham) and Thomson (US2019/0126097A1).
With respect to claim 1, Smith teaches a golf skill training system (title), comprising: a body harness (chest strap 101), configured to be worn by a golf player (figures 1 and 4; and paragraphs 40-51); and an armband assembly configured to be worn by the player, the armband assembly including a first armband (arm cuff 103) and a second armband (arm cuff 103) each configured to be wrapped around an arm of the player, a first elastic band (elastic retention band 104) and a second elastic band (elastic retention band 104) respectively configured to be affixed to the first and second armbands and to the body harness at locations (106) in front of a chest of the player, the first and second elastic bands being located in front of the player (note that the chest strap can be lengthened or shortened which would place the first and second bands in front of the player) (figures 1 and 4; and paragraphs 40-51).
With respect to claim 1, Smith does not teach at least one sensor integrated in each of the one or more first and second elastic bands and configured to measure an amount of stretch of the elastic band.
However, Perham teaches a golf practice device that measures an amount of stretch (flexure sensor 12/12’) of the elastic band (figures; and column 3, line 44-column 5, line 8), while Thomson teaches an elastic resistance band measuring device with an integrated sensor (figure 1; and paragraphs 35 and 87).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the measuring of Perham in the training device of Smith in order to monitor the flexure of the elastic band during the swing of golf club. In addition, at the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the integrated Stretchsense sensor of Thomson in the collective apparatus of Smith and Perham in order to reduce the complexity and/or footprint of the sensing network. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element (sensor) for another (sensor) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See MPEP 2143.
With respect claim 4, Smith teaches wherein the armband assembly further includes a rear elastic band (elastic retention band(s) connected at 105) affixed to the first and second armbands, configured to be wrapped around a back of the player (figures 1 and 4; and paragraphs 40-51).
With respect claim 5, Smith teaches a golf skill training system comprising: an armband assembly configured to be worn by a golf player, the armband assembly including a first armband (arm cuff 103) and a second armband (arm cuff 103) each configured to be wrapped around an arm of the player, an elastic band (elastic retention band 104) affixed to both the first and second armbands, wherein the elastic band is configured to be located in front of a chest of the player and is unattached to and unconstrained by any parts of the player (broadest reasonable interpretation) other than via the first and second armbands (figures 1 and 4; and paragraphs 40-51).
With respect to claim 5, Smith does not teach at least one sensor integrated in the elastic band and configured to measure an amount of stretch of the elastic band.
However, Perham teaches a golf practice device that measures an amount of stretch (flexure sensor 12/12’) of the elastic band (figures; and column 3, line 44-column 5, line 8), while Thomson teaches an elastic resistance band measuring device with an integrated sensor (figure 1; and paragraphs 35 and 87).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the measuring of Perham in the training device of Smith in order to monitor the flexure of the elastic band during the swing of golf club. In addition, at the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the integrated Stretchsense sensor of Thomson in the collective apparatus of Smith and Perham in order to reduce the complexity and/or footprint of the sensing network. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element (sensor) for another (sensor) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See MPEP 2143.
With respect claim 6, Smith teaches wherein the armband assembly further includes a rear elastic band (elastic retention band(s) connected at 105) affixed to the first and second armbands, configured to be wrapped around a back of the player (figures 1 and 4; and paragraphs 40-51).
Claim(s) 7, 9-11, and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, Perham, and Thomson as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Stirling et al. (US7,602,301B1) (hereafter Stirling).
With respect to claims 7 and 17, Smith, Perham, and Thomson do not teach one or more movement sensors configured to be attached to a waist of the player, and one or more movement sensors configured to be attached to each knee of the player.
However, Stirling teaches one or more movement sensors configured to be attached to a waist of the player (table 1), and one or more movement sensors configured to be attached to each knee of the player (figures 2, 3, and 15; column 25, line 53-column 26, line 8; and column 38, lines 8-18).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the extra movement sensors of Stirling in the collective system of Smith, Perham, and Thomson in order to obtain biometric data information related to the position, velocity, or acceleration of one or more portions of a body during a golf swing.
With respect to claims 9, 14, and 18, Thomson teaches the sensors are configured to transmit measurement data to a data processing system (microprocessor/CPU) (paragraph 46-49) and the data processing system (master control unit (141) and/or processors 150/160), wherein the data processing system is programmed to analyze the measurement data received from the sensors to evaluate movements of the player and to generate suggestions for the player (column 12, lines 6-25; column 27, lines 1-36; and column 39, lines 15-56), while Stirling teaches the movement sensors attached to the player's waist and knees are configured to transmit measurement data to a data processing system (master control unit (141) and/or processors 150/160). Accordingly, it would have also been obvious to transmit data from the sensors of the armband assembly in order to obtain biometric data information related to the position, velocity, or acceleration of one or more portions of a body during a golf swing.
With respect to claims 10, 15, and 19, the prior art does not teach wherein the data processing system is integrated in one of the sensors of the armband assembly or one of the movement sensors. However, section 2144.04 of the MPEP establishes that it is not inventive to make components integral. Also see In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). Accordingly, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to the artisan to integrate the data processing system into a sensor of the prior art in order to reduce the overall size and/or contain the electronic components in a single housing.
With respect to claims 11,16 and 20, Thomson teaches one or more wearable vibration devices (modulator 1742), communicatively coupled to the data processing system, and configured to generate vibrations to provide suggestions for the player (column 44, line 10-column 46, line 56).
Claim(s) 12 and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, Perham, Thomson, and Stirling as applied to claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 17, and 18 above, and further in view of Tamura (US2012/0108351A) (hereafter Tamura).
With respect to claims 12 and 21, Smith, Perham, Thomson, and Stirling do not teach wherein the wearable vibration devices are integrated with the movement sensors.
However, Tamura teaches wherein the wearable vibration devices are integrated with the movement sensors (figure 13; and paragraph 43).
Accordingly, at the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art integrate the vibration modulator device of Tamura with the sensor of the prior art in order to reduce the overall size and/or contain the electronic components in a single housing. Note section 2144.04 of the MPEP establishes that it is not invention to make components integral. Also see In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
With respect to claim 22, Thomson teaches the sensors are configured to transmit measurement data to a data processing system (microprocessor/CPU) (paragraph 46-49) and the data processing system (master control unit (141) and/or processors 150/160), wherein the data processing system is programmed to analyze the measurement data received from the sensors to evaluate movements of the player and to generate suggestions for the player (column 12, lines 6-25; column 27, lines 1-36; and column 39, lines 15-56), while Stirling teaches the movement sensors attached to the player's waist and knees are configured to transmit measurement data to a data processing system (master control unit (141) and/or processors 150/160). Accordingly, it would have also been obvious to transmit data from the sensors of the armband assembly in order to obtain biometric data information related to the position, velocity, or acceleration of one or more portions of a body during a golf swing.
With respect to claim 23, the prior art does not teach wherein the data processing system is integrated in one of the sensors of the armband assembly or one of the movement sensors. However, section 2144.04 of the MPEP establishes that it is not inventive to make components integral. Also see In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). Accordingly, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to the artisan to integrate the data processing system into a sensor of the prior art in order to reduce the overall size and/or contain the electronic components in a single housing.
With respect to claim 24, Thomson teaches one or more wearable vibration devices (modulator 1742), communicatively coupled to the data processing system, and configured to generate vibrations to provide suggestions for the player (column 44, line 10-column 46, line 56).
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Picard (US 5,188,365) in view of Perham et al. (US 5,667,447) (hereafter Perham) and Thomson (US2019/0126097A1).
With respect to claim 1, Picard teaches a golf skill training system (title), comprising: a body harness (2/4) (note that the design of the belt of Picard intrinsically allows it to be worn around a chest), configured to be worn by a golf player (figures; and column 3, line 30-column 6, line 34); and an armband assembly configured to be worn by the player, the armband assembly including a first armband (10) and a second armband (12) each configured to be wrapped around an arm of the player, a first elastic band (22) and a second elastic band (24) respectively configured to be affixed to the first and second armbands and to the body harness at locations (6/8) in front of a chest of the player, the first and second elastic bands being located in front of the player (note that the belt can be lengthened or shortened which would place the first and second bands in front of the player) (figures; and column 3, line 30-column 6, line 34).
With respect to claim 1, Picard does not teach at least one sensor integrated in each of the one or more first and second elastic bands and configured to measure an amount of stretch of the elastic band.
However, Perham teaches a golf practice device that measures an amount of stretch (flexure sensor 12/12’) of the elastic band (figures; and column 3, line 44-column 5, line 8), while Thomson teaches an elastic resistance band measuring device with an integrated sensor (figure 1; and paragraphs 35 and 87).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the measuring of Perham in the training device of Picard in order to monitor the flexure of the elastic band during the swing of golf club. In addition, at the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the integrated Stretchsense sensor of Thomson in the collective apparatus of Picard and Perham in order to reduce the complexity and/or footprint of the sensing network. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element (sensor) for another (sensor) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See MPEP 2143.
With respect claim 5, Picard teaches a golf skill training system comprising: an armband assembly configured to be worn by a golf player, the armband assembly including a first armband (10) and a second armband (12) each configured to be wrapped around an arm of the player, an elastic band (22/24) affixed to both the first and second armbands, wherein the elastic band is configured to be located in front of a chest of the player and is unattached to and unconstrained by any parts of the player (broadest reasonable interpretation) other than via the first and second armbands (figures; and column 3, line 30-column 6, line 34).
With respect to claim 5, Picard does not teach at least one sensor integrated in the elastic band and configured to measure an amount of stretch of the elastic band.
However, Perham teaches a golf practice device that measures an amount of stretch (flexure sensor 12/12’) of the elastic band (figures; and column 3, line 44-column 5, line 8), while Thomson teaches an elastic resistance band measuring device with an integrated sensor (figure 1; and paragraphs 35 and 87).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the measuring of Perham in the training device of Picard in order to monitor the flexure of the elastic band during the swing of golf club. In addition, at the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the integrated Stretchsense sensor of Thomson in the collective apparatus of Picard and Perham in order to reduce the complexity and/or footprint of the sensing network. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element (sensor) for another (sensor) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See MPEP 2143.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Best Resistance Bands, Loops & Ankle Straps I've Ever Used! - Exercises Included (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQQD0Che7lU) (hereafter Resistance Bands) in view of Perham et al. (US 5,667,447) (hereafter Perham) and Thomson (US2019/0126097A1).
With respect claim 5, Smith teaches a golf skill training system (intended use) comprising: an armband assembly configured to be worn by a golf player (the gentleman in the video is clearly capable of hitting a golf ball with a golf club), the armband assembly including a first armband (first ankle cuff) and a second armband (second ankle cuff) each configured to be wrapped around an arm of the player (note that the cuffs of Resistance Bands are capable of being wrapped around undefined arms of the gentleman in the video), an elastic band (elastic resistance band connected to the first and second cuffs) affixed to both the first and second armbands, wherein the elastic band is configured to be located in front of a chest of the player and is unattached to and unconstrained by any parts of the player (broadest reasonable interpretation) other than via the first and second armbands (note that the elastic resistance band is flexible and thus capable of being positioned in front of a chest of the gentleman in the video (video 0:00-8:44).
PNG
media_image1.png
950
1318
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
952
1186
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
958
1316
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 5, Resistance Bands does not teach at least one sensor integrated in the elastic band and configured to measure an amount of stretch of the elastic band.
However, Perham teaches a golf practice device that measures an amount of stretch (flexure sensor 12/12’) of the elastic band (figures; and column 3, line 44-column 5, line 8), while Thomson teaches an elastic resistance band measuring device with an integrated sensor (figure 1; and paragraphs 35 and 87).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the measuring of Perham in the training device of Resistance Bands in order to monitor the flexure of the elastic band during the swing of golf club. In addition, at the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the integrated Stretchsense sensor of Thomson in the collective apparatus of Resistance Bands and Perham in order to reduce the complexity and/or footprint of the sensing network. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element (sensor) for another (sensor) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See MPEP 2143.
With respect claim 6, the kit of Resistance Bands contains more than one elastic resistance band that are flexible. Thus, one band is capable of being positioned in front of the gentleman, while another elastic band is intrinsically capable of being positioned/wrapped around a back of the gentleman.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Resistance Bands, Perham, and Thomson as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Stirling et al. (US7,602,301B1) (hereafter Stirling).
With respect to claim 17, Resistance Bands, Perham, and Thomson do not teach one or more movement sensors configured to be attached to a waist of the player, and one or more movement sensors configured to be attached to each knee of the player.
However, Stirling teaches one or more movement sensors configured to be attached to a waist of the player (table 1), and one or more movement sensors configured to be attached to each knee of the player (figures 2, 3, and 15; column 25, line 53-column 26, line 8; and column 38, lines 8-18).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the extra movement sensors of Stirling in the collective system of Resistance Bands, Perham, and Thomson in order to obtain biometric data information related to the position, velocity, or acceleration of one or more portions of a body during a golf swing.
With respect to claim 18, Thomson teaches the sensors are configured to transmit measurement data to a data processing system (microprocessor/CPU) (paragraph 46-49) and the data processing system (master control unit (141) and/or processors 150/160), wherein the data processing system is programmed to analyze the measurement data received from the sensors to evaluate movements of the player and to generate suggestions for the player (column 12, lines 6-25; column 27, lines 1-36; and column 39, lines 15-56), while Stirling teaches the movement sensors attached to the player's waist and knees are configured to transmit measurement data to a data processing system (master control unit (141) and/or processors 150/160). Accordingly, it would have also been obvious to transmit data from the sensors of the armband assembly in order to obtain biometric data information related to the position, velocity, or acceleration of one or more portions of a body during a golf swing.
With respect to claim 19, the prior art does not teach wherein the data processing system is integrated in one of the sensors of the armband assembly or one of the movement sensors. However, section 2144.04 of the MPEP establishes that it is not inventive to make components integral. Also see In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). Accordingly, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to the artisan to integrate the data processing system into a sensor of the prior art in order to reduce the overall size and/or contain the electronic components in a single housing.
With respect to claim 20, Thomson teaches one or more wearable vibration devices (modulator 1742), communicatively coupled to the data processing system, and configured to generate vibrations to provide suggestions for the player (column 44, line 10-column 46, line 56).
Claim(s) 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Resistance Bands, Perham, Thomson, and Stirling as applied to claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 17, and 18 above, and further in view of Tamura (US2012/0108351A) (hereafter Tamura).
With respect to claim 21, Smith, Perham, Thomson, and Stirling do not teach wherein the wearable vibration devices are integrated with the movement sensors.
However, Tamura teaches wherein the wearable vibration devices are integrated with the movement sensors (figure 13; and paragraph 43).
Accordingly, at the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art integrate the vibration modulator device of Tamura with the sensor of the prior art in order to reduce the overall size and/or contain the electronic components in a single housing. Note section 2144.04 of the MPEP establishes that it is not invention to make components integral. Also see In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
With respect to claim 22, Thomson teaches the sensors are configured to transmit measurement data to a data processing system (microprocessor/CPU) (paragraph 46-49) and the data processing system (master control unit (141) and/or processors 150/160), wherein the data processing system is programmed to analyze the measurement data received from the sensors to evaluate movements of the player and to generate suggestions for the player (column 12, lines 6-25; column 27, lines 1-36; and column 39, lines 15-56), while Stirling teaches the movement sensors attached to the player's waist and knees are configured to transmit measurement data to a data processing system (master control unit (141) and/or processors 150/160). Accordingly, it would have also been obvious to transmit data from the sensors of the armband assembly in order to obtain biometric data information related to the position, velocity, or acceleration of one or more portions of a body during a golf swing.
With respect to claim 23, the prior art does not teach wherein the data processing system is integrated in one of the sensors of the armband assembly or one of the movement sensors. However, section 2144.04 of the MPEP establishes that it is not inventive to make components integral. Also see In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). Accordingly, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to the artisan to integrate the data processing system into a sensor of the prior art in order to reduce the overall size and/or contain the electronic components in a single housing.
With respect to claim 24, Thomson teaches one or more wearable vibration devices (modulator 1742), communicatively coupled to the data processing system, and configured to generate vibrations to provide suggestions for the player (column 44, line 10-column 46, line 56).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-7, 9-12, and 14-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KILEY SHAWN STONER whose telephone number is (571)272-1183. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday.
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, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KILEY S STONER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
