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 .
This communication is a non-Final office action on merit. Claims 1-12, after amendment, are presently pending and have been considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/25/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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 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.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0133578 A1, Kiraly (hereinafter Kiraly) in view of US 2021/0182560 A1, Richards et al. (hereinafter Richards).
As to claim 1, Kiraly discloses a target alignment method of a golf launch monitor using an alignment jig including a two-dimensional alignment mark placed in front of the golf launch monitor (Fig 7A), the target alignment method comprising:
acquiring a first image and a second image including the two-dimensional alignment mark with a first image sensor and a second image sensor, respectively (Fig 5A, 7A; pars 0007-0009, 0067, 007, two images being captured by two image sensors providing alignment indicator in a golf launch monitor device);
detecting, by a processor, the two-dimensional alignment mark in the first image and the second image, respectively (Figs 2, 3A-3B, 5A, detect alignment indicators; pars 0007-0009, 0015, 0018, 0060, 0067, 0069-0070, 0089); and
calculating, by the processor, an aimed target line according to the alignment jig by using the detected two-dimensional alignment mark (Figs 3A-3B, 5A-5B, calculating an azimuth alignment correction for a multi-sensor monitor; pars 0007-0009, 0018, 0067-0071, 0079-0080, perform the azimuth alignment correction for the aimed target based on alignment indicator and calibration parameters of the first image sensor and the second image sensor (Figs 5A-5B; pars 0007-0008, 0066, 0072, 0075, 0086, first and second image sensors being calibrated for alignment focus, search zone, and azimuth alignment calculation).
Kiraly does not expressly teach the alignment being two-dimensional. Richards, in the same or similar field of endeavor, further teaches two dimensional alignments to be obtained, detected, and marked by utilizing properly situated cameras (Figs 4-6; pars 0042-0044, 0046-0050),
Therefore, consider Kiraly and Richards’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of invention to incorporate Richards’s teachings in Kiraly’s method to provide an effective golf launch monitoring method to improve golfer’s performance by using a two dimensional alignment.
As to claim 2, Kiraly as modified discloses the target alignment method of claim 1, wherein the alignment jig includes a base that is seated on a ground and an alignment panel fixed to an upper portion of the base and including the alignment mark (Kiraly: Figs 7A-7B; Richards: pars 0042-0044).
As to claim 3, Kiraly as modified discloses the target alignment method of claim 2, wherein the two-dimensional alignment mark is formed of a reflective material or a reflective sheet (Kiraly: Figs 7A-7B; pars 0067, 0104, alignment mark or indicator being shown on display screen or LCD (e.g. reflective sheet); ).
As to claim 4, Kiraly as modified discloses the target alignment method of claim 1, further comprising: calculating, by the processor, a target alignment offset based on a difference between a direction of the aimed target line and a reference target line of the golf launch monitor (Kiraly: Figs 1, 5A-5B; pars 0007-0008, 0012, 0065, 0069, 0079-0081).
As to claim 5, Kiraly as modified discloses the target alignment method of claim 1, wherein the two-dimensional alignment mark has a predetermined polygonal shape, and the detecting the two-dimensional alignment mark is performed by detecting at least two straight lines forming the polygon (Kiraly: Figs 5A-5B, 7A; pars 0007-0009, 0060, 0067, 0069, the preset scan zone forms a polygonal shape) and an intersection point of the two straight lines, and calculating three-dimensional coordinates of the intersection point (Kiraly: Fig 5A; pars 0007-0008, 0075, 0078, 0086-0087, determining intersection of the plane and an earth tangential plane representing the 3D line of the alignment stick).
As to claim 6, Kiraly as modified discloses the target alignment method of claim 1, wherein the two-dimensional alignment mark is formed of a set of a plurality of line segments or a plurality of points (Kiraly: Figs 2, 3A-3B, a number of indicators (points) indicating alignment; pars 0067, 0069-0070, 0076; Richards: Figs 4-6; pars 0042-0044, 0046-0050).
As to claim 7, it is device claim encompassed claim 1. Rejection of claim 1 is therefore incorporated herein.
As to claims 8-12, they are rejected with the same reason as set forth in claims 2-6, respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but they are moot in light of new ground of rejection.
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.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular column, line number, paragraphs and/or figure(s) in the reference(s) as applied to the claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of 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 from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the reference(s) 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Qun Shen whose telephone number is (571) 270-7927. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Friday from 9:00-5:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's Supervisor, Amandeep Saini can be reached on (571) 272-3382. 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).
/QUN SHEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights