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 Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The recitation in claim 18 of “infra-red” should be changed to --infrared--.
The recitation in claim 18 of “wherein, when the first marker is distinguishable from a material of the golf club surrounding the first marker in the near infra-red spectrum and is not distinguishable from the material of the golf club surrounding the first marker in a visible portion of the spectrum” should be changed to --wherein, the first marker is distinguishable from a material of the golf club surrounding the first marker in the near infrared spectrum and is not distinguishable from the material of the golf club surrounding the first marker in a visible portion of the spectrum--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 19-21, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saito (20130305806).
Regarding claim 1, Saito (Figures 1-19) teaches a system for tracking a motion of a golf club, comprising: a tracking device configured to track motion of a golf club and generate tracking data corresponding to a position of the golf club during a swing of the golf club (Para. 0060); and a processor (Para. 0063) analyzing the tracking data to identify a portion of the tracking data corresponding to a first marker (Fig. 1, Part No. 6; Para. 0061) (Fig. 4, Part No. M3; Para. 0075) positioned on the golf club (Para. 0061), the first marker (6) being configured to reflect a target type of radiation (Para. 0061) in a manner distinguishable from the reflection of radiation from portions of the golf club excluding the first marker (Para. 0061), the processor being configured to determine, based on the tracking data corresponding to the portions of the golf club excluding the first marker and the tracking data corresponding to the first marker, a three-dimensional trajectory of the golf club (Para. 0065-0067).
Regarding claim 2, Saito (Figures 1-19) teaches the tracking data includes data corresponding to at least one of Face Angle, Dynamic Loft, club speed (Para. 0070), attack angle, and club path (Para. 0061).
Regarding claim 3, Saito (Figures 1-19) teaches the tracking device includes a first camera (Fig. 1, Part No. 2A) (Para. 0061) and the tracking data comprises a series of images generated by the first camera during the swing of the golf club (Para. 0063), the processor being configured to identify the first marker in the images and to analyze positions of the first marker in the images to determine a three-dimensional position (Para. 0067) and orientation (Para. 0008, 0073-0074, 0076) of the golf club at times corresponding to each of the images of the series of images (Para. 0063).
Regarding claim 19, Saito (Figures 1-19) teaches a method for tracking a motion of a golf club, comprising: generating tracking data via a tracking device configured to track motion of a golf club, the tracking data corresponding to a position of the golf club during a swing of the golf club (Para. 0060); and analyzing, using a processor (Para. 0063), the tracking data to identify a portion of the tracking data corresponding to a first marker (Fig. 1, Part No. 6; Para. 0061) (Fig. 4, Part No. M3; Para. 0075) positioned on the golf club, the first marker being configured to reflect a target type of radiation (Para. 0061) in a manner distinguishable from the reflection of radiation from portions of the golf club excluding the first marker (Para. 0061), the processor being configured to determine, based on the tracking data corresponding to the portions of the golf club excluding the first marker and the tracking data corresponding to the first marker, a three-dimensional trajectory of the golf club (Para. 0065-0067).
Regarding claim 20, Saito (Figures 1-19) teaches the tracking data includes data corresponding to at least one of Face Angle, Dynamic Loft, club speed (Para. 0070), attack angle, and club path (Para. 0061).
Regarding claim 21, Saito (Figures 1-19) teaches the tracking device includes a first camera (Fig. 1, Part No. 2A) (Para. 0061) and the method further comprising: generating, via the first camera, a series of images during the swing of the golf club, and identifying via the processor the first marker in the images and analyzing, using the processor, positions of the first marker in the images to determine a three-dimensional position (Para. 0067) and orientation (Para. 0073-0074, 0076) of the golf club at times corresponding to each of the images of the series of images.
Regarding claim 24, Saito (Figures 1-19) teaches when the golf club includes a second marker (Fig. 4, Part No. M4) (Para. 0075-0076) positioned on a head of the golf club, determining by the processor based on a portion of the tracking data corresponding to movement of the first and second markers, a three-dimensional path of movement of the head of the golf club during the swing (Para. 0067).
Regarding claim 25, Saito (Figures 1-19) teaches determining by the processor (Para. 0063), based on the portion of the tracking data corresponding to the movement of the first and second markers, a three-dimensional orientation of the head of the golf club during the swing (Para. 0067, 0076).
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 shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4-5, 7-8, 16-17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Hasegawa (20070105639).
Regarding claim 4, Saito (Figures 1-19) teaches a tracking device configured to track motion of a golf club and generate tracking data corresponding to a position of the golf club during a swing of the golf club (Para. 0060)
Saito does not teach the tracking device includes a radar unit and wherein the tracking data comprises radar data corresponding to one of a range and a range rate of a target portion of the golf club relative to the radar unit.
Hasegawa teaches the tracking device includes a radar unit (Para. 0021, 0032) and wherein the tracking data comprises radar data corresponding to one of a range and a range rate of a target portion of the golf club relative to the radar unit (Para. 0043).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Saito with radar data corresponding to one of a range and a range rate of a target portion of the golf club relative to the radar unit as taught by Hasegawa as a means of providing a radar unit within a specific range distance of a golf club when measuring parameters of a swing (Hasegawa: Para. 0043).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Saito (Figures 1-19) teaches the target portion of the golf club includes a head of the golf club and wherein the first marker (6) is located on the head of the golf club (Para. 0061).
Regarding claim 7, Saito (Figures 1-19) teaches when the golf club includes a second marker (Fig. 4, Part No. M4) (Para. 0075-0076) positioned on a head of the golf club, the processor is configured to determine based on a portion of the tracking data corresponding to movement of the first and second markers, a three-dimensional path of movement of the head of the golf club during the swing (Para. 0067).
Regarding claim 8, Saito (Figures 1-19) teaches the processor (Para. 0063) is configured to determine, based on the portion of the tracking data corresponding to the movement of the first and second markers, a three-dimensional orientation of the head of the golf club during the swing (Para. 0067, 0076).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Saito (Figures 1-19) teaches the tracking data includes three-dimensional positioning data (Para. 0065-0067) for a head of the golf club during at least a portion of a golf swing before and through a time of impact with a golf ball.
The modified Saito does not teach the radar unit is a three-dimensional doppler radar.
Hasegawa teaches the radar unit is a three-dimensional doppler radar (Para. 0012, 0067)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Saito with the radar unit is a three-dimensional doppler radar as taught by Hasegawa as a means of using 3D doppler radar to track objects in a golf game (Hasegawa: Para. 0012, 0067).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Saito (Figures 1-19) teaches the tracking data includes an orientation of the head of the golf club during the portion of the golf swing (Para. 0073-0074, 0076).
Regarding claim 22, Saito (Figures 1-19) teaches generating tracking data via a tracking device configured to track motion of a golf club, the tracking data corresponding to a position of the golf club during a swing of the golf club (Para. 0060)
Saito does not teach the tracking device includes a radar unit and the method further comprising: generating, via the radar unit, radar data corresponding to one of a range and a range rate of a target portion of the golf club relative to the radar unit.
Hasegawa teaches the tracking device includes a radar unit (Para. 0021, 0032) and the method further comprising: generating, via the radar unit, radar data corresponding to one of a range and a range rate of a target portion of the golf club relative to the radar unit (Para. 0043).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Saito with radar data corresponding to one of a range and a range rate of a target portion of the golf club relative to the radar unit as taught by Hasegawa as a means of providing a radar unit within a specific range distance of a golf club when measuring parameters of a swing (Hasegawa: Para. 0043).
Claims 9-10, 15, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Kimizuka (20130172095).
Regarding claim 9, Saito (Figures 1-19) teaches the first camera (Fig. 1, Part No. 2A) (Para. 0060) faces a target area within which the golf club is to be swung, the first camera being positioned to capture images of a head of the golf club when the golf club is swung in the target area in a target direction (Para. 0061).
Saito does not teach the first camera being positioned to capture images of a face of a head of the golf club.
Kimizuka (Figures 1-14) teaches the camera being positioned to capture images of a face of a head of the golf club (Para. 0009, 0052, 0089).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Saito with the camera being positioned to capture images of a face of a head of the golf club as taught by Kimizuka as a means of measuring a position and attitude of the head and in knowing a positional relationship between the ball and a face in the impact (Kimizuka: Para. 0009).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Saito (Figures 1-19) teaches a second camera (Fig. 1, Part No. 2B) (Para. 0060) facing the target area, the second camera being positioned to capture images of the head of the golf club when the golf club is swung in the target area in the target direction (Para. 0061).
The modified Saito does not teach the second camera being positioned to capture images of a rear surface of the head of the golf club.
Kimizuka (Figures 1-14) teaches the camera being positioned to capture images of a rear surface of the head of the golf club (Para. 0009, 0052, 0089).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Saito with the camera being positioned to capture images of a rear surface of the head of the golf club as taught by Kimizuka as a means of measuring a position and attitude of the head of a golf club (Kimizuka: Para. 0009, 0089).
Regarding claim 15, Saito (Figures 1-19) teaches the first camera (Fig. 1, Part No. 2A) (Para. 0060-0061) is positioned above a target area within which the golf club is to be swung (See fig. 1), the first camera being positioned above to capture images of a head of the golf club when the golf club is swung in the target area in a target direction (Para. 0061).
Saito does not teach the first camera being positioned above to capture images of a top of a head of the golf club.
Kimizuka (Figures 1-14) teaches the camera being positioned above to capture images of a top of a head of the golf club (See fig. 1, Part No. CM1) (Para. 0009, 0057, 0089).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Saito with the camera being positioned above to capture images of a top of a head of the golf club as taught by Kimizuka as a means of measuring a position of the head of a golf club (Kimizuka: Para. 0009, 0089).
Regarding claim 26, Saito (Figures 1-19) teaches the tracking device includes a first camera (Fig. 1, Part No. 2A) (Para. 0061).
Saito does not teach capturing, using the first camera, images of a face of a head of the golf club during the swing of the golf club.
Kimizuka (Figures 1-14) teaches capturing, using the camera, images of a face of a head of the golf club during the swing of the golf club (Para. 0009, 0052, 0089).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Saito with capturing, using the camera, images of a face of a head of the golf club as taught by Kimizuka as a means of measuring a position and attitude of the head and in knowing a positional relationship between the ball and a face in the impact (Kimizuka: Para. 0009).
Regarding claim 27, the modified Saito (Figures 1-19) teaches the tracking device includes a first camera (Fig. 1, Part No. 2A) (Para. 0061).
The modified Saito does not teach capturing via a second camera images of a rear surface of the head of the golf club during the swing of the golf club.
Kimizuka (Figures 1-14) teaches capturing via a camera images of a rear surface of the head of the golf club during the swing of the golf club (Para. 0009, 0052, 0089).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Saito with capturing via a camera images of a rear surface of the head of the golf club during the swing of the golf club as taught by Kimizuka as a means of measuring a position and attitude of the head of a golf club (Kimizuka: Para. 0009, 0089).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Marty (20130095961).
Regarding claim 18, Saito (Figures 1-19) teaches a tracking device configured to track motion of a golf club and generate tracking data corresponding to a position of the golf club during a swing of the golf club (Para. 0060)
Saito does not teach the first camera is sensitive to light in a near infrared portion of a spectrum and wherein, when the first marker is distinguishable from a material of the golf club surrounding the first marker in the near infrared spectrum and is not distinguishable from the material of the golf club surrounding the first marker in a visible portion of the spectrum.
Marty teaches the first camera is sensitive to light in a near infrared portion of a spectrum (Para. 0025) and wherein, when the first marker is distinguishable from a material of sports equipment surrounding the first marker in the near infrared spectrum (Para. 0025, 0096) and is not distinguishable from the material of the sports equipment surrounding the first marker in a visible portion of the spectrum (Para. 0096).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Saito with the first marker is distinguishable from a material of sports equipment surrounding the first marker in the near infrared spectrum as taught by Marty as means of providing sports equipment with infrared markers that are only visible in infrared light (Marty: Para. 0096).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER GLENN whose telephone number is (571)272-1277. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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.
/C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/JOSEPH B BALDORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights