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 .
Applicant’s response to the office action of 4/3/2026 is acknowledged on 6/27/2026.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested by the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The Examiner notes that it has been held that a recitation that a structural element is "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to” perform a function does not limit the claim to a particular structure and thus only requires the ability to so perform the function. (See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. See also, MPEP 2111.04) As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and the prior art, the recitations of "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to” will be deemed met by an element in the prior art capable of performing the function recited in connection with "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to”. The examiner is aware of the functional language in various claims.
Disclaimer
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.
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 should not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, 10, 11, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwahashi et al. (US Patent No. 8,398,502) in view of Mullick et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0283429).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Iwahashi discloses golf lesson system (see all Figures) comprising: an impact sensor provided on a face of a clubhead and configured to sense a hitting point at which a golf ball is hit on the face (see abstract; golf club (1) having a clubhead (5) with face (103)).Iwahashi disclose a hitting position detecting arrangement including sensors (101,102,104-107) configured to detect a position at which a golf ball impacts the clubface (see for example Figures 1 and 13-14). Iwahashi, however, does not explicitly teach a stimulator having a plurality of stimulation sections and a processor configured to generate tactile stimulation in a stimulation section corresponding to the detected hitting point. Mullick teaches a golf training feedback system including a plurality of tactile modules (see 310(1) – 310(M)) for generating tactile stimulation and a computing device (400) including processor (420) for providing feedback based on sensed golf performance information (see Figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Iwahashi’s hitting position detection system to incorporate Mullick’s plurali8ty of tactile modules (310 (1)-310(M)) controlled by processor (420) and to associate respective tactile modules/stimulation sections with respective detected hitting positions, such that the processor activates the stimulation section corresponding to the hitting pint detected by Iwahashi’s sensors (101, 102, 104-107). The motivation would have been to provide the golfer with localized tactile feedback identifying the detected clubface impact location, thereby providing the known hitting position through tactile feedback and yielding the predictable result of improved real time golf training feedback.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Iwahashi iv view of Mullick teaches the system and method of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above. Mullins further teaches providing real time tactile feedback to a golfer using tactile modules (310(1)-310(M)), wherein the tactile feedback may comprise vibration stimulation. Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the tactile stimulation of the modified Iwahashi system as vibration stimulation, as taught by Mullins, to provide the golfer with readily perceptible tactile feedback regarding the sensed golf information. Such modification merely applies Mullins’ known tactile feedback technique to Iwahashi’s golf feedback system to obtain the predictable result of communicating detected golf information through vibration.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Iwahashi, in view of Mullick teaches the system and method of claims 1 and 11, as disclosed above. Iwahashi teaches determining the hitting position of the golf ball on the clubface, while Mullick further teaches a computing device (400) having display (430) for visually resenting determined golf information (see Figures 4 and 6). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use Mullick’s display (430) to visually display Iwahashi’s detected clubface impact position information, including whether impact occurred at the respective detected impact position or positions, in order to provide the golfer with visual confirmation of the sensed impact information. Such modification would predictably supplement tactile feedback with visual feedback.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 6-9, 12-14 and 16-19 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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.
Applicant’s argument is persuasive only to the extent that the Iwahashi reference does not expressly disclose the disputed tactile stimulation limitations. However, the rejection has been modified to rely upon the Mullick reference for its teaching of a golf training system employing multiple tactile feedback modules controlled to provide tactile feedback based on sensed golf performance information (see rejections provided above).
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). Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for replying 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 NINI F LEGESSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4412. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday 9 AM - 5:30 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, Nicholas J. Weiss can be reached at (571)270-1775. 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.
/NINI F LEGESSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights