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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. 12,260,771 and 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,727,823 B2. Independent Claims 1 and 6 of the instant application are analyzed and reviewed for the similarities and differences in the claim chart below.
Claim 1 of the instant application
Claim 1 of ‘771 Patent
Claim 1 of the ‘823 Patent
Similarities and Differences
A method of fitting a golfer comprising:
A method of fitting a golfer comprising:
A method of fitting a golfer performed by a computer comprising:
The same
providing an image capturing apparatus, said image capturing apparatus comprising:
providing an image capturing apparatus, said image capturing apparatus comprising:
The same
a gantry providing structural support to said image capturing apparatus; and
a gantry providing structural support to said image capturing apparatus,
a camera adjustable to different positions within said gantry and capable of capturing at least one performance variable;
a camera adjustable to different positions within said gantry and capable of capturing at least one performance variable;
allowing a golfer to address the golf ball;
allowing a golfer to address a golf ball;
positioning said image capturing apparatus in a first location;
adjusting a location of said gantry together with a first location of said camera to correspond with a first address position of said golfer;
adjusting a location of a gantry together with a first location of a camera to correspond with said golfer’s address position;
Similarities – the Claims each recite substantially the same subject matter.
Differences – The instant application recites a broader embodiment of “positioning said image capturing apparatus in a first location” as oppose to the analogous subject matter recited of “adjusting a location of said gantry together with a first location of said camera to corresponding with a golfer’s address position”
capturing at least one performance variable during a golf swing of a golfer while said image capturing apparatus is in said first location;
capturing said at least one performance variable with a first golf swing of said golfer,
capturing at least one performance variable with said golfer’s golf swing;
The same
adjusting a position of said camera relative to said gantry; and
adjusting said camera within said gantry to a second, different location corresponding to a second, different address position of said golfer; and
adjusting said camera to a second location corresponding with said golfer’s new address position;
Similarities – the Claim each recite substantially the same subject matter.
Differences – The instant application recites “adjusting a position of said camera relative to said gantry” whereas the ‘771 and ‘832 patent recites an analogous positioning to “adjusting said camera within said gantry to a second, different location corresponding to a second, different address position of said golfer” and “adjusting said camera to a second location corresponding with said golfer’s new address position;” respectively.
wherein when adjusting said camera to said second location corresponding with said golfer’s new address position, said location of said gantry is not adjusted; and
Differences – Both the ‘771 Patent and the ‘832 patent further recites a narrower embodiment of the instant application which requires the adjustment of the camera to said second location corresponding with the new address position is made with adjusting the location of the camera in support of the gantry whereas the gantry is not adjusted.
analyzing said at least one performance variable and recommending a golf club to said golfer.
analyzing said at least one performance variable and recommending a golf club to said golfer.
analyzing said at least one performance variable and recommending a golf club to said golfer.
The same
Independent Claim 6 of the Instant Application
Independent Claim 6 of the ‘771 Patent
Independent Claim 5 of the ‘823 Patent
Similarities and Differences
A method of fitting a golfer comprising: providing an image capturing apparatus performed by a computer comprising:
A method of fitting a golfer comprising: providing an image capturing apparatus, said image capturing apparatus comprising:
A method of fitting a golfer with an image capturing apparatus performed by a computer comprising: providing an image capturing apparatus, said image capturing apparatus comprising:
The same
a gantry providing structural support to said image capturing apparatus;
a gantry providing structural support to said image capturing apparatus;
a gantry providing structure support to said image capturing apparatus;
The same
a horizontal cross bar adjustably attached to a top surface of said gantry;
a platform; and
a platform adjustably attached to and draping down from said horizontal cross bar; and
Instant application recites a broader description of the platform recited in ‘771 and ‘892
a camera adapted to engaged said platform capable of capturing at least one performance variable, wherein said camera is a high speed camera capable of capturing at least one performance variable,
a camera adapted to engage said platform capable of capturing at least one performance variable, wherein said camera is a high speed camera capable of capturing at least one performance variable,
The same
wherein said horizontal cross bar and said platform combine to allow said camera to be adjusted along at least two axes across said image capturing apparatus, and
a horizontal cross bar adjustably attached to a top surface of said gantry;
a platform adjustable attached to and draping down from said horizontal cross bar; and
Instant application recites a broader embodiment of the claimed platform of the ‘892 Patent
a camera adapted to engage said platform capable of capturing at least one performance variable;
a camera adapted to engage said platform capable of capturing at least one performance variable;
The same
wherein said camera is a high speed camera capable of capture rate of greater than about 1,000 frames per second;
wherein said adjustable horizontal cross bar and said adjustable platform combine to allow said position of said camera to be adjusted along at least two axes across said image capturing apparatus, and wherein said camera is a high speed camera capable of a capture rate of greater than about 1,000 frames per second,
The instant application recites a broader embodiment of the claimed invention in ‘892
allowing said golfer to address a golf ball;
allowing said golfer to address a golf ball;
positioning said image capture apparatus in a first location;
adjusting a location of said gantry together with a first location of said camera to correspond with a first address position of said golfer;
adjusting a location of said gantry together with a first location of said camera to correspond with said golfer’s address position;
The instant application recites a broader embodiment of positioning/adjusting the image capture apparatus to a first location
capturing said at least one performance variable during a golf swing of a golfer while said image capturing apparatus is in said first location;
capturing said at least one performance variable with a first golf swing of said golfer;
capturing said at least one performance variable with said golfer’s golf swing;
The same
adjusting a position of said camera relative to said gantry; and
adjusting said camera to a second location within said gantry corresponding with a second address position of said golfer; and
adjusting said camera to a second location within said gantry corresponding with said golfer’s new address position, said location of said gantry is not adjusted; and
The claims are directed to a broader embodiment of the subject matter of ‘771 and ‘892
Differences – the ‘771 Patent and the ‘832 patent further recites the narrower embodiment which is encompassed by the broader limitation of the instant claim as it requires the adjusting of the camera to occur to adjusting to a new location and the gantry not being adjusted as opposed to just the broader second location.
analyzing said at least one performance variable and recommending a golf club to said golfer.
analyzing said at least one performance variable and recommending a golf club to said golfer.
analyzing said at least one performance variable and recommending a golf club to said golfer.
The same
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because independent Claims 1 and 6 of the instant application recite substantially the same subject matter of “a method of fitting a golfer” of independent Claims 1 and 6 of the ‘771 Patent and “a method of fitting a golfer with a computer and imaging apparatus” of independent Claims 1 and 5 of the ‘832 patent, respectively. Specifically, they are not patentable distinct from each other because the patented claims anticipate the more generic or broader claims now pending (instant independent Claims 1 and 6). That is, the rationale of In re Goodman applies here in that once Applicant has received a patent for a species or a more specific embodiment, Applicant is not entitled to a patent for the generic or broader invention without maintaining common ownership and ensuring that the term of the latter issued patent will expire at the end of the original term of the earlier issued patent. Furthermore, any differences in the claims, as shown in the claim chart above, amount to obvious variations in the terms which are not patentably distinct from the claimed subject matter of the instant application.
Regarding dependent claim 2, the claim recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 2 of the ‘771 Patent and ‘832 patent.
Regarding dependent claim 3, the claim recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 3 of the ‘771 Patent and ‘832 patent.
Regarding dependent claim 4, the claim recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 4 of the ‘771 Patent and claim 1 of the ‘832 patent.
Regarding dependent claim 5, the claim recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 5 of the ‘771 Patent and 4 of the ‘832 patent.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites substantially the same subject matter as dependent claim 7 of the ‘771 Patent and claim 6 of the ‘832 patent.
Regarding claim 8, the claims recites a broader embodiment of the subject matter recited in dependent Claim 8 of the ‘771 Patent.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites substantially the same subject matter as dependent claim 9 of the ‘771 Patent and claim 7 of the ‘832 patent.
Regarding dependent claim 10, the claim recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 10 of the ‘771 Patent and claim 8 of the ‘832 patent.
Regarding dependent claim 11, the claim recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 11 of the ‘771 Patent and claim 9 of the ‘832 patent.
Regarding dependent claim 12, the claim recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 12 of the ‘771 Patent and claim 10 of the ‘832 patent.
Regarding dependent claim 13, the claim recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 13 of the ‘771 Patent and claim 11 of the ‘832 patent.
Regarding dependent claim 14, the claim recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 14 of the ‘771 Patent and claim 12 of the ‘832 patent.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites limitations directed to a grouping of abstract idea, as indicated below, such as:
1. A method of fitting a golfer comprising: --certain method of organizing human activity;
providing an image capturing apparatus, said image capturing apparatus comprising:
a gantry providing structural support to said image capturing apparatus; and
a camera adjustable to different positions within said gantry and capable of capturing at least one performance variable;
positioning said image capturing apparatus in a first location;
capturing said at least one performance variable during a golf swing of a golfer while said image capturing apparatus is in said first location;
adjusting a position of said camera relative to said gantry; and
analyzing said at least one performance variable and recommending a golf club to said golfer. -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
For at least this reasons, the claims are found to recite a grouping of abstract idea under Step 2A-prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations such as: “providing an image capturing apparatus, said image capturing apparatus comprising: a gantry providing structural support to said image capturing apparatus; and a camera adjustable to different positions within said gantry and capable of capturing at least one performance variable;” “positioning said image capturing apparatus in a first location;” “capturing said at least one performance variable during a golf swing of a golfer while said image capturing apparatus is in said first location;” “adjusting a position of said camera relative to said gantry;” amount to mere extra-solution including pre-solution data gathering of the abstract idea, invoking a highly generalized computer component to implement the abstract idea, and/or a technological environment to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, the claims are not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “an imaging capturing apparatus” comprising “a gantry” and “a camera” when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements recite highly-generalized components utilized in the well-known and/or ordinary function. For instance, as defined by Merriam Webster – a gantry is : a frame structure raised on side supports so as to span over or around something: such as: a platform made to carry a traveling crane and supported by towers on side frames running on parallel tracks” which indicates that the recited gantry is a well-known structure in the supporting structure arts. Additionally, “a camera” as disclosed in Robinson et al. (US 2006/0164534 A1) recites that high-speed digital video cameras are well-known in industry for their use in analyzing events or processes which the human eye, or a conventional camera is unable to capture with sufficient detail in swing analysis in sports such as tennis or golf which indicates the conventional use of a camera for golfer swing analysis (see Robinson, 0002-0003). These additional elements are recited to perform extra solution activity (e.g., data gathering and adjustment of a position camera) that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Moreover, the conventional and commercially available components recited are found to perform a desired result (e.g., fitting a golfer) as opposed to how the inventor intended to achieve the desired result as performed by these elements which indicates that these additional elements, when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements, amount to invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h)). For at least these reasons, Claim 1 has been found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
With respect to independent Claim 6, the claims recite substantially the same subject matter as discussed with respect to independent Claim 1. The analysis above has been incorporated herein. Additionally, independent Claim 6 recites “wherein the said camera is a high speed camera capable of a capture rate of greater than about 1,000 frames per second” which does not change or alter the analysis above. For example, Robinson et al. (US 2006/0164534 A1) discloses that high-speed digital video cameras capable of a capture rate of greater than about 1,000 frames per second are well-known and conventional in the golf swing analysis arts. For at least these reasons, the independent Claim 6 is found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
With respect to dependent claims 2-5 and 7-14, the limitations have been reviewed and/or analyzed and were found to recite at least one of: a grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)); invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, the claims 1-14 have been found to recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Interpretation
The term, “gantry” is not defined in the Specification, therefore broadest reasonable interpretation of the plain and ordinary meaning has been applied. In this case, a gantry is defined as “a frame structure raised on side supports so as to span over or around something” (see Merriam-Webster online Dictionary - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gantry).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/35 USC § 103
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
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 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.
Claims 1, 4-7, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 USC 103 as obvious over Johnson et al. (US 2015/0018130 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson discloses a method of fitting a golfer comprising (see Johnson, Fig. 7-8(a-e)):
a gantry providing structural support to said image capturing apparatus (see Johnson, Fig. 1 and 4, 0064-0069); and a camera adjustable to different positions within said gantry and capable of capturing at least one performance variable (see Johnson, Figs. 1 and 4, 0055-0057, 0060, 0069;
positioning said image capturing apparatus in a first location (see Johnson, Fig. 1-2, 0055, 0062-0064, 0053-0058, wherein steps 722-728, wherein golf fitting method comprises the performance of a golf swing which allows a golfer to address a golf ball);
capturing said at least one performance variable during a golf swing of a golfer (see Johnson, Fig. 2, 4, 6-8, 0074, 0076, 0081-0082);
adjusting a position of said camera relative to said gantry (see Johnson, Fig. 1-2, 4, 7-8(a-e),0027, 0064-0069, 0073, 0133-0138. wherein the gantry (e.g., moveable camera bay 410) is adjusted to a location of origin to align the golfer’s address position to define the cartesian coordinate system and each of the plurality of cameras are capable of being placed at different locations along the moveable camera bay 410 for capturing the markers for the golfer’s swing such as reversing the orientation position of the cameras to suit a left handed golfer as opposed to a right handed golfer); and
analyzing at least one performance variable and recommending a golf club to said golfer (see Johnson, Fig. 2, 6-8, 27, 0073-0074, 0076, 0081-0082, 0133-0138, wherein the recommended golf club comprises a recommended shaft characteristic, head weight, etc. to match the swing profile). Alternatively, if the disclosure for adjusting a position of said camera relative to said gantry for a different orientation is not found to anticipate the claimed subject matter, “adjusting a position of said camera relative to said gantry” is a limited subset of possibilities (e.g., moving the gantry, moving the camera in relation to the gantry, and permanently fixed) for capturing as much information associated with the golfer’s swing by the camera that it would have been “obvious to try” to one of ordinary skill in the golf fitting arts. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the application for adjusting a position of said camera relative to said gantry.
Regarding claim 4, Johnson discloses the method of fitting claim 1, wherein when adjusting said position of said camera relative to said gantry, said gantry is not adjusted (see Johnson, Fig. 4, 7-8, 23, 0063-0069, 0125-0127, wherein the camera location may be adjusted to an overhead view or to the golf club when adjusting for the subsequent swings for determining shaft weight, head weight, etc. without moving the gantry when the origin of the cartesian system stays the same).
Regarding claim 5, Johnson discloses the method of fitting claim 1, further comprising: after adjusting said position of said camera relative to said gantry (see Johnson, Fig. 1-4, 0063), capturing at least an additional at least one performance variable with an additional golf swing of said golfer (see Johnson, Fig. 7-8, 27, 0080-0081, wherein the shaft fitting and recommendation incorporates a plurality of golf swings associated with the golfer, 0133-0136, 0138-0140, wherein the additional performance variable is a club head speed, ball speed, launch angel, descent angle, dispersion, wherein the golf fitting utilizes no more than 35 golf shots (excluding warm up swings)).
Regarding claim 6, Johnson discloses a method of fitting a golfer comprising (see Johnson, Fig. 7-8(a-e)):
a gantry providing structural support to said image capturing apparatus (see Johnson, Fig. 1 and 4, 0064-0069); a platform (see Johnson, Figs 1-4, wherein the platform is a place where the golfer stands to swing at an address position and/or the surface to mount a camera); and a camera adapted to engage said platform capable of capturing at least one performance variable (see Johnson, Figs. 1 and 4, 0055-0057, 0060, 0069), wherein said camera is a high speed camera capable of a capture rate of greater than about 1,000 frames per second (see Johnson, 0057, wherein a high-speed camera with a shutter speed of 1/3000 second is a frame rate greater than 1,000 frames per second for the 100 golf swings made by the golfer;
positioning said image capturing apparatus in a first location (see Johnson, Fig. 1-2, 0055, 0062-0064, 0053-0058, wherein steps 722-728, wherein golf fitting method comprises the performance of a golf swing which allows a golfer to address a golf ball);
capturing said at least one performance variable during a golf swing of a golfer (see Johnson, Fig. 2, 4, 6-8, 0074, 0076, 0081-0082);
adjusting a position of said camera relative to said gantry (see Johnson, Fig. 1-2, 4, 7-8(a-e),0027, 0064-0069, 0073, 0133-0138. wherein the gantry (e.g., moveable camera bay 410) is adjusted to a location of origin to align the golfer’s address position to define the cartesian coordinate system and each of the plurality of cameras are capable of being placed at different locations along the moveable camera bay 410 for capturing the markers for the golfer’s swing such as reversing the orientation position of the cameras to suit a left handed golfer as opposed to a right handed golfer); and
analyzing at least one performance variable and recommending a golf club to said golfer (see Johnson, Fig. 2, 6-8, 27, 0073-0074, 0076, 0081-0082, 0133-0138, wherein the recommended golf club comprises a recommended shaft characteristic, head weight, etc. to match the swing profile). Alternatively, if the disclosure for adjusting a position of said camera relative to said gantry for a different orientation is not found to anticipate the claimed subject matter, “adjusting a position of said camera relative to said gantry” is a limited subset of possibilities (e.g., moving the gantry, moving the camera in relation to the gantry, and permanently fixed) for capturing as much information associated with the golfer’s swing by the camera that it would have been “obvious to try” to one of ordinary skill in the golf fitting arts. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the application for adjusting a position of said camera relative to said gantry.
Regarding claim 7, Johnson discloses the method of claim 6, wherein said at least one performance variable comprises at least one of an angle of attack, a dynamic loft, a shaft lean, a face angle, a lie angle, a golf ball launch angle and a golf ball spin (see Johnson, Fig. 7-8(a-e), 27, 0081-0082, 0094, 0134).
Regarding claim 12, Johnson discloses the method of claim 6. Johnson further discloses said image capturing apparatus further comprising: a plurality of wheels attached to a base of said image capturing apparatus, said plurality of wheels in contact with a ground surface in order to provide mobility for said image capturing apparatus about said ground surface; wherein said plurality of wheels allow a position of said image capturing apparatus to be adjusted (see Johnson, Fig. 4, 0069, wherein the movable camera bay 410 has a plurality of wheels 412 to allow a position of said image capturing apparatus to be initially adjusted).
Regarding claim 13, Johnson discloses the method of fitting of claim 6, wherein said camera has a capture rate of between about 1,500 frames per second to about 6,000 frames per second (see Johnson, Fig. 2, wherein the shutter rate of 1/3000th is a capture rate of about 3,000 frames per second which is within a range of 1.5k-6k fps).
Regarding claim 14, Johnson discloses the method of claim 13, wherein said camera has a capture rate of between about 2,000 frames per second to about 6,000 frames per second (see Johnson, Fig. 2, wherein the shutter rate of 1/3000th is a capture rate of about 3,000 frames per second which is within a range of 2k-6k fps).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 2015/0018130 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Johnson discloses the method of claim 6. However, Johnson is silent as to the image capturing device having a width of about 30 inches and a length of about 30 inches. However, resizing the gantry having the claimed relative dimension of 30 inches and a length of 30 inches would not appear to perform differently than the gantry taught by Turcotte for supporting the image capturing apparatus. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to modify the image capturing apparat of Turcotte to have dimensions of 30 inches and a length of 30 inches. Furthermore, it would have been a mere obvious matter of DESIGN CHOICE to suit the intended use of imaging the area to fit the golfer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Evensen (US 2003/0054327 A1) discloses for capturing actual video or motion images of the user’s movement during execution of a golf swing, that one or more video cameras may be positions at various angles and positions to capture different views or perspectives of the user during their golf swing (see Evensen, 0061) which is relevant as to the adjusting the position of cameras for capturing a golf swing such as during a golf fitting.
Turcotte (US 4,020,348) discloses a gantry scanning camera suspended from a horizontal bar and draping down from an elevated gantry and is laterally movable driven by a chain-belt mechanism for the imaging radioactive events (see Turcotte, Fig. 1-4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00-6:00 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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/RYAN HSU/EXAMINER, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights