DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-13) in the reply filed on 7/1/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “ Obvious to try ” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
3. Claims 1-4, 6-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saville et al. (US Pat. No. 6,261,189) in view of Choi (US Pat. No. 8,052,543).
With respect to claim 1, Saville et al. teaches a golf swing assist apparatus, comprising: light emitting parts 1, 10 (“IR Transmitter”) configured to emit a laser beam 3, 12 (“IR beam”) along a boundary plane that demarcates whether a trajectory of a golf club is in a set area or not (“three-dimensional converging channel of preferred space in which the golfer should position the golf club shaft during the takeaway and the downswing phases of the golf swing” – column 4, lines 5-40); light receiving parts 2 or 11 (“IR receiver”) located at irradiation positions of the laser beam along boundary planes (Fig.’s 1-3); the light receiving parts configured to detect whether the laser beam (“IR beam”) toward the irradiation position is being blocked or not (columns 1-2; column 4, lines 5-40);
Saville et al. does not disclose whether the (“IR receiver) comprises multiple receiving parts, thus fails to expressly teach wherein receiving parts (plural) are configured to detect the laser beam from a (singular) light emitting part such that the light emitting part is configured to emit the laser beam having a linear irradiation range through the light receiving parts. However, such features are known in the art, as evidenced by Choi – light emitting part 140 (“light source) or 150 (“laser) received by light receiving parts 102, 104 (“sensor array”)(columns 2-6; Fig.’s 2-3). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have multiple light emitting parts to receive a laser beam emitted from a light emitting part. The rationale to combine is to utilize a known arrangement for purposes of determining if a light path is blocked or not by a path of a club head.
Saville et al. utilizes an analog-type output unit that is configured to output a determination result of a swing state as shown in Fig. 6 – “inside takeaway”, “outside takeaway”, “cross line”, “over top”. The output is in the form of an “audible alarm” and/or illumination of “a status light”. Saville et al. does not expressly teach wherein the determination result is a result of a swing state that is specifically determined by a determination unit on a basis of a detection result. However, analogous art reference Choi teaches this feature to be known in the art – “control unit 110” uses “silhouette data” from sensor arrays 102, 104 to show club head path on “display unit 120” (Fig. 5; column 4, lines 14-38; column 9, lines 59-67). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a determination unit to visually display the data provided by the light sensors. This will expectantly provide easily viewable feedback to the user.
With respect to claim 3, Saville et al. teaches wherein there are a plurality of the boundary planes including a front boundary plane (defined by laser beam 12) on a front side of the set area and a rear boundary plane (defined by beam 3) on a rear side of the set area (Fig.’s 1-2). As stated above in the rejection of claim 1, Saville teaches determining the swing state on a basis of the detection result by the light receiving parts located on the front boundary plane and the detection result by the light receiving parts located on the rear boundary plane (column 3, lines 53-59). The combination of Saville et al., with the teachings of Choi, are considered to teach wherein the determination unit makes the determination. The rationale to combine is the same as stated above.
With respect to claim 4, Saville et al. teaches wherein the light receiving parts 2 or 11 are located along a floor surface in the boundary plane, the light emitting part 1 or 10 is located at a higher position than the light receiving parts 2 or 11, and assuming that a launching area is an area where a golf ball is flown toward from a predetermined golf ball position in the set area and a start area is opposite to the launching area in a horizontal direction along the boundary plane, the light emitting part 1 or 10 is located in the start area, and the light receiving parts 2 or 11 are located in the launching area (Fig. 3).
With respect to claims 6-7, Saville et al. teaches determining as the swing state, whether the trajectory crossed the boundary plane on a way of the trajectory on the basis of the detection result by the light receiving parts 2 or 11, and an output unit is configured to output the determination result including whether the trajectory crossed the boundary plane on the way or not, and determine which of states the swing state includes on the basis of the detection result by the light receiving parts, the states including a first change state where the trajectory changes from the set area to a non-set area by crossing the boundary plane on the way and a second change state where the trajectory changes from the non-set area to the set area by crossing the boundary plane on the way, and the output unit is configured to output the determination result of the swing state including the first change state and the second change state (Fig. 6; “three-dimensional converging channel of preferred space in which the golfer should position the golf club shaft during the takeaway and the downswing phases of the golf swing” – column 4, lines 5-40; See also column 3, lines 53-59). The combination of Saville et al., with the teachings of Choi, are considered to teach wherein the determination unit makes the determinations above. The rationale to combine is the same as stated above.
With respect to claim 12, Choi, cited above for the determination unit, further teaches an output unit 120 that includes an aerial display that causes an aerial display screen (i.e. Fig. 5 showing “approach path of the club head” as “digital” rendering – column 4, lines 26-29) to appear ahead of a set area with reference to an address position of the player (Fig. 2 showing the display 120 positioned outside the swing path of the golfer). The rationale to combine is the same as stated above, in addition to ensuring the golfer’s swing is not interfered with. Seville teaches wherein its output displays the determination result (i.e. “inside takeaway” illumination, “outside takeaway” illumination – Fig. 6). As such, the combination of Seville and Choi would teach providing the determination on the aerial screen. The rationale to combine is to provide a concise written summary of the swing path analysis to the golfer.
4. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saville et al. (US Pat. No. 6,261,189) in view of Choi (US Pat. No. 8,052,543) and further in view of Pelz (US Pub. No. 2011/0159980).
With respect to claim 5, Saville et al. teaches wherein each IR beam can be moved (column 4, lines 1-2) but does not expressly teach a tilt adjustment mechanism that can adjust an angle of the boundary plane to the floor surface, and a height adjustment mechanism that can adjust a height of the light emitting part on the boundary plane. However, Pelz teaches such features to be known in the art (Fig. 9; paragraph [0041]; See also titling motion of tripod bracket – Fig.’s 2-3). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add the light emitting adjustment components (i.e. titling, height adjustment) of Pelz to the system of Saville et al. The rationale to combine is to provide adjustability of the boundary planes, which is necessary for different sized golfers.
5. Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saville et al. (US Pat. No. 6,261,189) in view of Choi (US Pat. No. 8,052,543) and further in view of Mendelsohn (US Pat. No. 9,114,302).
With respect to claims 8-9, Saville et al. does not teach a detection unit as claimed. However, analogous art reference Mendelsohn teaches the following to be known in the art: a golf club passing detection unit configured to detect a movement of a golf club 28 so as to enable a determination of a follow-through, wherein a determination unit is configured to determine a follow-through on a basis of a detection result by the golf club passing detection unit, wherein the golf club passing detection unit includes sensors 22, 24 that detect passing of the golf club 28 at respective positions where the golf club passes in swinging, and the determination unit is configured to determine the follow-through on a basis of a detection order of passing of the golf club by the sensors (Fig.’s 1-3; columns 2-3; “On the follow through, the proper golf swing path 30 is outside lower beam 32 and inside upper beam 32.”). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add the golf swing detection unit of Mendelsohn to the system of Saville et al. The rationale to combine is to provide feedback to the golfer on the technique of the follow through.
Lastly, Saville et al. teaches wherein each of the sensors are configured to be used in isolation from other sensors (See Fig. 6; column 5, lines 25-30). As such, Saville et al., in view of Choi, is considered to teach wherein the determination unit is configured not to use a detection result by the light receiving parts after determining the follow-through for determining the swing state.
6. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saville et al. (US Pat. No. 6,261,189) in view of Choi (US Pat. No. 8,052,543) and further in view of Harkness (US Pat. No. 5,467,992)
With respect to claim 13, Saville et al. does not expressly teach a player detection unit as claimed. However, analogous art reference Harkness teaches the following to be known in the art: a player detection unit configured to detect whether the player is present at the address position of the player or not; and an emission control unit configured to cause a light emitting part to emit a laser beam when the player detection unit detects that the player is present at the address position, the emission control unit being configured to cause the light emitting part to stop emitting the laser beam when the player detection unit detects that the player is not present at the address position (column 3, lines 48-57). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add a player detection unit to the system of Saville et al. The rationale to combine is to save energy and costs by prolonging the life of the light emitting part.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 10-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL DAVID DENNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3538. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Eugene Kim can be reached at (571) 272 4463. 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.
/MICHAEL D DENNIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights