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 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, a rear elastic band affixed to the first and second armbands of claims 4 and 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The body harness of claim 3 is already required in claim 2. Note that in order for an elastic band to be “configured” to be affixed to a body harness the body harness must necessarily be present. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MYOSOURCE, PowerForm Bands® (Golf Swing Training Aid) in view of Perham et al. (US 5,667,447) (hereafter Perham) and Thomson (US2019/0126097A1).
With respect to claim 1, MYOSOURCE teaches a golf skill training system (figures; and description), comprising: an armband assembly configured to be worn by a golf player, the armband assembly including a first armband and a second armband each configured to be wrapped around an arm of the player, one or more elastic bands affixed to the first and second armbands and configured to be located in front of the player (figures; and description).
With respect to claim 1, MYOSOURCE does not teach at least one sensor integrated in each of the one or more elastic bands and configured to measure an amount of stretch of the elastic band.
However, Perham a golf practice that measures an amount of stretch (flexure) of the elastic band, 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 MYOSOURCE 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 MYOSOURCE 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 to claim 2, MYOSOURCE teaches wherein the one or more elastic bands include a first elastic band affixed to the first armband and configured to be affixed (broadest reasonable interpretation) to a body harness, and a second elastic band affixed (broadest reasonable interpretation) to the second armband and configured to be affixed to the body harness (figures; and description). Note that the kit-like structure of MYOSOURCE allows the components to be configured in the claimed manner.
With respect to claim 3, MYOSOURCE teaches including the body harness (the back pad that the elastic bands run through) (figures; and description).
With respect to claims 4 and 6, MYOSOURCE teaches wherein the one or more elastic bands further include a rear elastic band (conformable back pad that both bands are capable of extending through) affixed to the first and second armbands, configured to be wrapped around a back of the player (figures; and description).
With respect to claim 5, MYOSOURCE teaches wherein the one or more elastic bands include a single elastic band affixed to both the first and second armbands (figures; and description).
With respect to claim 13, Thomson teaches wherein the sensors are configured to transmit measurement data to a data processing system (paragraph 87). While, Perham also teaches wherein the sensors are configured to transmit measurement data to a data processing system (claims 36-40).
Claim(s) 7-11 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MYOSOURCE, Perham, and Thomson as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Stirling et al. (US7,602,301B1) (hereafter Stirling).
With respect to claim 7, MYOSOURCE, 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 MYOSOURCE, 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 8, Thomson teaches the sensors are configured to transmit measurement data to a data processing system (microprocessor/CPU) (paragraph 46-49), 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).
With respect to claims 9 and 14, Thomson teaches 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).
With respect to claims 10 and 15, 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 and 16, 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MYOSOURCE, Perham, Thomson, and Stirling as applied to claims 1, 7-9, and 11 above, and further in view of Tamura (US2012/0108351A) (hereafter Tamura).
With respect to claim 12, MYOSOURCE, 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).
Conclusion
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