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 amendments dated 1/22/26 are hereby entered.
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.
Claims 11-20 are 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 11 recites the limitation "[t]he method of claim 10". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "[t]he method of claim 10". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recited the limitation “a best fit line matching the predominant axis” and it is unclear if this is the same as or different from the same limitation claimed in Claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process that can be performed by a human being and/or a method of organizing human activity.
In regard to Claims 1 and 9, the following limitations can be performed as a mental process by a human being in terms of claiming collecting data, analyzing that data, and providing outputs based on that analysis which has been held by the CAFC to be an abstract idea in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential); and/or recite a method of organizing human activity in terms of claiming the teaching/training/evaluation of a human subject’s which has been identified by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) as being a method of organizing human activity, in terms of the Applicant claiming:
[a] method for measuring an orientation of a golf ball relative to a target point, comprising:
[receiving image data regarding] at least one image of a golf ball placed at a placement position on a surface inside an enclosure configured to control light exposure to the golf ball placed at the placement position on the surface, the golf ball comprising an alignment aid;
[…];
determining […]an aimed direction based on an orientation of the alignment aid in the at least one image, including determining a predominant axis of the alignment aid and finding […] a best fit line matching the predominant axis, based on the image data;
calculating […] an alignment value based on the aimed direction, including comparing the aimed direction to a target direction, wherein the target direction is a straight line connecting the placement position to the target point; and
providing the alignment value […].
In regard to the dependent claims, they also claim an abstract idea to the extent that they merely claim further limitations that likewise could be performed as a mental process by a human being and/or a method of organizing human activity.
Furthermore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because to the extent that additional elements are claimed either alone or in combination such as, e.g., a golf ball comprising an alignment aid; a camera; a computing system comprising at least one processing unit and memory storing instructions embodying Applicant’s abstract idea; a rod, string, or tape; and/or an enclosure, these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering), to embody the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In this regard, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) in regard to “courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application…”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that taken individually, and also taken as an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g., a golf ball comprising an alignment aid; a camera; a computing system comprising at least one processing unit and memory storing instructions embodying Applicant’s abstract idea; and/or a rod, string, or tape; and/or an enclosure, these are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements and are claimed for the well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of collecting and processing data and/or providing an analysis/outputs based on that processing. To the extent that an apparatus is claimed as an additional element said apparatus fails to qualify as a “particular machine” to the extent that it is claimed generally, merely implements the steps of Applicant’s claimed method, and is claimed merely for purposes of extra-solution activity or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(b). As evidence that these additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, Applicant’s specification discloses the support for these elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See, e.g., p2 in Applicant’s specification regarding a golf ball comprising an alignment aid; e.g., F3 and text regarding same in regard to a camera and/or a computing system comprising at least one processing unit and memory storing instructions embodying Applicant’s abstract idea; e.g., p55 in regard to a rod, string, or tape; and, e.g., p78 in regard to the enclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 9-10, and 15-17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by PGPUB US 20240082679 A1 by Federko (“Federko”).
In regard to Claim 1, Federko teaches an alignment system for measuring an orientation of a golf ball relative to a target point, the alignment system comprising:
a camera configured to capture at least one image of a golf ball placed at a placement position on a surface, the golf ball comprising an alignment aid; and
(see, e.g., F3A, 308 in regard to “a camera”; see, e.g., F9, “Ball Line Detection”, 912 and 224 regarding “the golf ball comprising an alignment aid”);
a computing system comprising at least one processing unit and memory storing instructions configured to be executed by the at least one processing unit to:
(see, e.g., F3A, 302, 304; and F3B);
determine an aimed direction based on an orientation of the alignment aid in the at least one image;
(see, e.g., p102 and F6A, 202);
calculate an alignment value based on the aimed direction; and
(see, e.g., F6A, 600);
provide the alignment value to a user interface
(see, e.g., F6A, 212 and 214).
In regard to Claim 2, Federko teaches these limitations. See, e.g., F6A, 600.
In regard to Claim 3, Federko teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p52.
In regard to Claim 4, Federko teaches these limitations. See, e.g., F4E; F9, “Ball Line Detection”; and p69.
In regard to Claims 9-10, see rejection of Claims 1-2.
In regard to Claim 15, Federko teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p67.
In regard to Claim 16-17, Federko teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p45.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 5-8 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Federko.
In regard to Claims 5-8 and 11-14, Federko teaches employing multiple alignment devices based on captured images in order to generate the target direction (see, e.g., p103) as well as teaches a method of employing an alignment stick as an alignment device/calibration line (see, e.g., F9, “Core Functionality”);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have combined the functionalities taught by Federko in order to provide additional options for the golfer.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Federko, in view of official notice.
In regard to Claims 18-20, while Federko teaches employing various computer vision techniques to identify the alignment device it may not necessarily teach these claimed techniques, however,
the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that such computer vision techniques were old and well-known at the time of Applicant’s filing its invention. Such functionality allows for more accurate identification of object in images. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to implement the claimed functionality within the invention of the cited prior art so as to allow for more accurate identification of object in images.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on pages 8-9 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101:
PNG
media_image1.png
68
667
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
225
675
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because merely claiming physical objects but without making technological improvements to those objects does not necessarily render patent eligible subject matter under the Mayo test. See, e.g., the fish hooks claims in In re Rudy, the copy machine of Content Extraction, the garage door opener controller of Chamberlain, the digital camera of Yu v. Apple, the CAD printer of Ficep (non-precedential), etc. In other words, simply employing well-known, routine, and conventional devices (e.g., a camera, a box (“enclosure”), a computer) is some ostensibly novel and/or non-obvious combination also does not necessarily claim patent eligible subject matter under the Mayo test. Applicant’s claimed invention does not result in any technological improvements, in short, to the claimed enclosure, camera, and/or computing systems themselves.
Applicant argues on page 9 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101:
PNG
media_image3.png
341
684
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that it has claimed a “practical application” and thereby claimed patent eligible subject matter under the Mayo test. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The Mayo test is a legal test and “practical application” is not part of the Mayo test but is, instead, a burden placed on examiners by the Office when they are making a 101 rejection employing the Mayo test. Simply invoking “practical application” but without citing specific legal authority in support of Applicant’s argument that it has claimed patent eligible subject matter under the two-part Mayo test, therefore, does not provide a proper basis or rationale as to why the 101 rejection being made is allegedly deficient. What is more, Applicant’s claims are directed to collecting data, analyzing that data, and providing an output based on that analysis and are thereby abstract as a mental process. That Applicant may be claiming an improved method of performing this type of abstract idea does not in and of itself render patent eligible subject matter.
Applicant argues on page 9 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101:
PNG
media_image4.png
311
704
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive. Applicant’s “enclosure” is disclosed, basically, as being a box (any box):
PNG
media_image5.png
167
575
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Given this limited disclosure in regard to how to make and/or use this box it would not be enabling were this object already well-known, routine and conventional. In regard to Applicant’s other argument the claimed limitations in terms of “best fit line matching the predominant axis” and the like are identified in the rejection as being part of the abstract idea and, therefore, no Berkheimer finding need be made in regard to them.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.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.
/MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715