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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged that application claims priority to the Japanese Application No. 2023-185761, filed October 30, 2023. Copies of certified papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 have been received. Priority is acknowledged under 35 U.S.C. 119(a).
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed October 29, 2024 and August 7, 2025 have been considered. The references cited therein have been reviewed to the extent compliant with 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
Specification
The specification is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate corrections is required.
In the description of step S145, the specification states that an abnormal value may be identified when swing time SWT is "larger than a second threshold value (shorter than the first threshold value)." In context, and consistently with claims 6 and 15, the intended condition is that swing time SWT is shorter than the second threshold value.
In the description identifying the object struck by the hitting tool, the specification states that "ball 3" is the object. Figure 1 and the surrounding description identify bat 3 and ball 5. "Ball 3" should therefore be corrected to "ball 5."
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 8, 16, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate corrections is required.
Claims 7, 8, 16, and 17 recite a "numerical value representing a restitution force," whereas the specification consistently describes a "coefficient of restitution" as the numerical rebound or energy-transfer factor used in the calculation. The claims should be amended to use terminology consistent with the specification.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 - Statutory Category
Independent claim 1 recites a machine, independent claim 10 recites a process, and independent claim 19 recites a manufacture in the form of a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium. The claims therefore fall within statutory categories and are analyzed under Step 2A.
Step 2A, Prong One - Judicial Exception Recited
Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 recite obtaining swing-related numerical values, calculating first and second score values from those values, mathematically integrating the score values according to a user-designated weighting parameter, and generating comparative diagnosis information from the resulting total scores. These limitations recite mathematical relationships and calculations, including the calculation and weighted integration of numerical indicator values. They therefore recite mathematical concepts, an abstract idea identified in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The focus of the independent claims is the numerical evaluation of hitting-tool suitability: operability- and momentum-related inputs are converted into indicator scores, the scores are weighted and integrated, and the resulting values are used to produce selection information. This information-processing sequence is factually analogous to the collection, analysis, and display of information found abstract in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Electric Power Group, the claims collected power-grid measurements, analyzed them, and displayed the results without improving the measurement technology or using the result to control the grid. Here, the claims collect swing measurements, mathematically score and compare them, and output a hitting-tool diagnosis without improving the measurement technology or using the diagnosis to control or physically modify the hitting tool, the swing, or the struck object. This comparison is based on the similar information-analysis focus and is not a per se rule that every sensor-based claim is abstract.
The dependent claims further define the recited mathematical concepts:
Claims 2 and 11 recite function approximation or regression of total score as a function of moment of inertia.
Claims 3 and 12 limit the approximation to a quadratic function.
Claims 4 and 13 select maximum, minimum, and intermediate moment-of-inertia values.
Claims 5 and 14 recite calculated acceleration, time, impact power, momentum, speed, and inertia relationships.
Claims 6 and 15 compare a measured time with upper and lower numerical thresholds and apply a rule based on the comparison.
Claims 7 and 16 multiply a score by a restitution-related numerical value.
Claims 8 and 17 divide an integrated score by a price-related numerical value; the price consideration also concerns a commercial evaluation.
Claims 9 and 18 recite statistical processing and quantification of relative relationships.
These limitations refine the mathematical scoring model but do not remove the recited abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two - No Integration into a Practical Application
The additional elements in claim 1 are a measurement device and a data analysis device. Claim 10 also recites selecting candidate tools based on user input and obtaining values using a measurement device. Claim 19 recites one or more computers and a non-transitory recording medium. Considered individually and as an ordered combination, these elements do not integrate the mathematical scoring model into a practical application.
The measurement device supplies the numerical inputs used by the scoring model. The claims do not require a particular sensor arrangement, a new measurement technique, or an improvement in sensor operation. Obtaining the swing measurements is therefore data gathering incidental to the subsequent mathematical analysis. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). The physical swing and impact provide the subject matter being measured, but the claims do not apply the calculated result to
control that physical process. Generating diagnosis information likewise reports the result of the analysis; it does not control a machine, alter a hitting tool, change a swing, or transform an article into a different state or thing.
The data analysis device, computer, and recording medium are recited as tools for executing and storing the calculations. The claims do not recite an improvement to computer functionality, sensor technology, or another technical field. The asserted result is improved selection information produced by the scoring model, not improved operation of the computer or measurement device. Limiting the calculations to hitting tools and swing measurements limits the field in which the abstract idea is used but does not add a meaningful technological limitation. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a), 2106.05(f)-(h).
The dependent claims add mathematical formulas, threshold rules, statistics, and additional data used in the same scoring and recommendation process. None requires a physical implementation that changes how the measurement or computing technology operates. Claims 1-19 are therefore directed to the identified mathematical concepts.
Step 2B - No Significantly More
The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The specification describes measurement device 100 as an inertial sensor and a computing device such as a smartphone running an application, expressly identifies a commercially available swing-measurement system as an example, and states that other measurement systems may be substituted. The specification describes data analysis device 200 as a computer, such as a tablet terminal, having a CPU, memory, input/output circuit, and display. See Specification, Figs. 1-3 and accompanying description. These disclosures support the finding that the claimed sensing, computing, storage, and display components are used according to their ordinary functions. The requirement that swing measurement values be obtained for each of three test hitting tools likewise does not add an inventive concept. Howenstein teaches that "user 101 takes one or more test swings with each of three different bats" and transmits sensor data from those swings to a processor for analysis ([0206], Fig. 46). The three-tool limitation therefore merely defines the number of candidate-tool data sets supplied to the same generic measurement and scoring process; it does not change how the sensor or computer operates, improve another technology, or create a nonconventional technical interaction.
The specification does not identify unconventional sensor circuitry, computer architecture, or a specialized technological procedure required by the claims. The computer receives data, performs arithmetic and statistical calculations, stores information, and presents results; the sensor obtains input data for those calculations. The specification's use of a commercially available measurement system and generic computer components provides factual support that these are well-understood, routine, and conventional uses of the recited components. Berkheimer requires the well-understood, routine, and conventional finding to rest on factual support when it is material to Step 2B; here, the applicant's own description of a commercially available measurement system and ordinary computer components supplies that support. See MPEP § 2106.05(d); Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Considered as an ordered combination, the elements perform the same ordinary sequence: obtain swing data, calculate and weight scores, and output selection information. No nonconventional arrangement or technical interaction is recited. The dependent claims add further calculations and data-selection rules performed by the same generic components. The ordered combination therefore does not supply an inventive concept, and claims 1-19 do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
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 1, 2, 5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howenstein et al. (US 20230256317 A1, "Howenstein") in view of Yamada et al. (US 20140244011 A1, "Yamada").
Regarding claim 1, Howenstein teaches a hitting-tool fitting system having a measurement device and a data analysis device. Howenstein states that "user 101 takes one or more test swings with each of three different bats" and that sensor data from those swings are transmitted to a processor for analysis ([0206], Fig. 46). Thus, Howenstein teaches obtaining swing measurement values for each of three test hitting tools using inertial sensors and a processor.
Howenstein further teaches the two claimed categories of swing measurements. Its acceleration metric "describe[s] how quickly or to what extent a user can accelerate each bat," which is an indicator of operability, and its momentum metric describes momentum generated with each bat for transfer to a struck ball ([0207]). Howenstein calculates that momentum metric "as a product of end speed 506 and an effective mass 4711 of the equipment," where effective mass accounts for the equipment's shape and mass distribution ([0210]). These teachings address a first measurement dependent on operability and a second measurement dependent on momentum at hitting.
Howenstein also teaches calculating per-tool scores and integrating them according to user-selected weighting. Howenstein scales the acceleration, speed, and momentum values so that "the highest observed value of each metric" receives a "perfect score," and then combines the metrics into a metrics score using "a weighted sum of the individual metrics" whose weights "may be selected by a user" ([0212]-[0213]). The processor recommends the tested equipment having the highest metrics score and may generate an overall score using user-input-generated weights ([0209], [0217]-[0220]; claims 11-16). This teaches the score calculator, the weighting parameter designated by the hitting person, and the diagnosis information generator.
Howenstein does not expressly require the second score to indicate the speed of the hit object. Yamada teaches that "a ball launch speed Vout is calculated from reduced mass M, a coefficient of restitution (COR) of the bat, a ball mass m2, a swing speed Vs, and a pitching speed Vin," and selects the bat having the maximum calculated ball-launch speed as most suitable for the batter ([0108], [0112]). Yamada's reduced-mass and swing-speed inputs are the same types of mass-distribution and speed quantities used in Howenstein's effective-mass-times-speed momentum metric. The ball-launch-speed value is therefore an indicator of hit-object speed calculated from the momentum-related swing and tool data required by claim 1.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howenstein's processor to calculate and score Yamada's predicted ball-launch speed as the second, hit-object-speed indicator. Howenstein is a base bat-fitting system that scores player-specific swing measurements, and Yamada is a comparable bat-selection system that improves the recommendation by calculating the resulting ball speed. A person of ordinary skill could have applied Yamada's processor-based calculation to Howenstein's processor-based score architecture because both associate numerical swing and equipment data with each candidate bat. The technique would have continued to perform its established function of predicting ball speed and would predictably have supplemented Howenstein's swing-side operability score with an object-side performance score, with a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR International co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007); MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Regarding claim 2, Howenstein and Yamada teach the system of claim 1 and further teach associating measured performance with moment of inertia. Howenstein teaches that the tested bats have different moments of inertia and that measured performance may be related to "the length, weight, weight distribution (such as moment of inertia), or any other bat characteristics" to identify other bats for recommendation ([0207], [0219]). Yamada obtains "a relational expression (correlation) between the moment of inertia and the angular velocity" and uses the regression expression to estimate swing performance for additional bats ([0098]-[0101], [0148]-[0150]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Yamada's known moment-of-inertia regression technique to Howenstein's integrated per-bat score and retain the resulting formula as part of the diagnosis information. Howenstein already supplies a score for each tested bat and the corresponding moment of inertia, so its score data are ready for the same regression treatment that Yamada applies to player-specific performance data. Applying the technique would have required ordinary numerical regression, would not have changed the function of either the score or the moment-of-inertia input, and would predictably have produced a formula approximating total suitability score as a function of moment of inertia. Including that formula in the diagnosis information would allow the system to estimate and explain the suitability of additional bats without requiring the user to swing each one. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(1)(D).
Regarding claim 5, Howenstein teaches the system of claim 1 and the additional, disjunctively recited measurement alternatives. For the first measurement, Howenstein teaches an acceleration metric and teaches that "a time to contact metric may be calculated as the elapsed time between start of downswing and impact" ([0152]). For the second measurement, Howenstein teaches that average power may be calculated as mass multiplied by speed and acceleration, and that momentum may be calculated as effective mass multiplied by endpoint speed ([0151], [0207], [0210]; claims 18-22). Effective mass based on shape and mass distribution is an inertia characteristic under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. Because the claim permits initial acceleration or required time and impact power or momentum, Howenstein expressly teaches each required category and no further modification is needed beyond the combination stated for claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Howenstein and Yamada teach the system of claim 1, including a user- weighted integration of an operability score and a hit-object-speed score. However, the combination discussed for claim 1 does not expressly require multiplying the second score by a numerical restitution value before the weighted integration. Yamada teaches that COR is "specification information specific to each bat," that using a measured COR improves the accuracy of calculated ball-launch speed, and that the COR value may be corrected by multiplication with a value from zero to one to account for player-specific impact performance ([0108]-[0110], [0138]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Yamada's bat-specific COR correction to Howenstein's second, hit-object-speed score before integrating that score with the operability score. Howenstein supplies the base score architecture, while Yamada supplies a known technique for adjusting a bat- performance value according to the bat's restitution and the player's expected contact. Both systems evaluate candidate bats using player-specific measurements. Applying the correction as a multiplicative scale factor would have used COR for its established purpose of representing the bat's contribution to transferred ball speed and predictably distinguished bats that produce different object speeds despite similar swing-side measurements. A person of ordinary skill would have expected success because the modification is an arithmetic scaling operation within the processor-based score calculation. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Regarding claim 9, Howenstein teaches the system of claim 1 and calculates a score using a statistical processing value that quantifies the relative relationship among measurements for the tested tools. Howenstein scales the data so that "the highest observed value of each metric (across the tested equipment options) is set to a 'perfect score'" and subtracts points according to each value's deviation from that cross-tool maximum ([0212]). The resulting scaled value quantifies each tool's measurement relative to the corresponding measurements for the other tools, which teaches the additional limitation under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howenstein in view of Yamada, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Bose et al. (WO 2018053449 A1, "Bose").
Regarding claim 3, Howenstein and Yamada teach the system of claim 2, including three test bats and a regression relating performance to moment of inertia. Yamada states that, in accordance with the batter's age, the device selects "three bats in this example" having moments of inertia different from one another ([0077]-[0080]). However, Howenstein and Yamada do not expressly require the function approximating total score versus moment of inertia to be quadratic.
Bose teaches polynomial curve fitting in sports-motion sensor processing. Bose states that an extrapolation curve may use "linear functions, quadratic functions, and cubic functions" and may be generated using "spline fitting or regression" ([00307]-[00308], Fig. 55).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Bose's known quadratic-regression technique for the Yamada moment-of-inertia/performance approximation. Yamada supplies the base regression process and three performance-data inputs; Bose supplies an applicable, known quadratic fitting technique for measured sports-motion data. A person of ordinary skill could have applied the technique by fitting the same three input-output pairs with a quadratic function, and would have recognized the predictable benefit of representing a nonlinear relationship that a straight line would not capture. The modification would have retained the same moment-of-inertia inputs, performance output, and estimation objective, and ordinary regression software would have provided a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(1)(D).
Regarding claim 4, Howenstein, Yamada, and Bose teach the system of claim 3, including three age-associated test bats having different moments of inertia and a quadratic approximation. However, the references do not expressly label the three selected bats as the maximum-, minimum-, and intermediate-moment-of-inertia tools within that selected group. Yamada teaches that the age-associated selection contains three bats, Nos. 2, 5, and 8, "having bat lengths and moments of inertia different from one another" ([0077]). The claim does not require the "hitting tool group corresponding to an attribute" to contain more than those three age-associated selected tools. When the three distinct values are ordered, one necessarily is the maximum, one is the minimum, and the remaining value is between them.
This is the reasonable inference a person skilled in the art would draw from Yamada's complete numerical disclosure. In In re Preda, the claimed carbon-disulfide process required about 750-830 degrees C, while the reference expressly exemplified 700 degrees C but also recognized the same type of conversion above 750 degrees C. The court held that a reference is considered for both its express words and the reasonable technical inferences a skilled artisan would draw, and treated the higher-temperature operation as disclosed. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968); MPEP § 2144.01. The present facts are similar because the claimed ordering follows necessarily from Yamada's expressly different values within the selected group, just as the pertinent operation in Preda followed from the reference's express technical teachings despite not appearing in the example alone. Preda is not applied as a per se rule that any three-item disclosure satisfies any ordered limitation, and the present record contains no evidence of a different group definition, criticality, teaching away, or unexpected result. Bose remains in the rejection because claim 4 depends from claim 3.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howenstein in view of Yamada, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shibuya (US 20120316004 A1, "Shibuya").
Regarding claim 6, Howenstein and Yamada teach the system of claim 1, including calculating a first score from a swing measurement. However, they do not expressly prohibit total-score calculation when the time from swing start to impact is outside both an upper and a lower threshold. Howenstein defines time to contact as "the elapsed time between start of downswing and impact" and reports two-ended typical ranges for age and skill groups, including 230-400 milliseconds, 185-325 milliseconds, 140-260 milliseconds, and 100-200 milliseconds ([0152]). Those disclosures provide known lower and upper reference values for the claimed elapsed time, but Howenstein does not itself state that an out-of-range swing must be excluded.
Shibuya teaches pre-analysis temporal validation of candidate swing data. Shibuya calculates the entire time from swing start to finish, applies temporal conditions and a threshold comparison, determines whether a candidate is "true swing data," and excludes data determined not to be true swing data from the analysis range ([0126]-[0133]; claims 1, 5, and 6).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Shibuya's known pre-analysis validity-screening technique to Howenstein's time-to-contact measurement and to use the lower and upper endpoints of the applicable Howenstein range as the two screening thresholds. Howenstein supplies the base fitting process, the same start-to-impact duration, and known group-specific two-ended ranges; Shibuya supplies the applicable technique of excluding temporally nonrepresentative swing data before downstream analysis. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized that withholding the integrated score for unusually slow or unusually fast swings would prevent nonrepresentative trials from distorting the bat comparison. The modification uses ordinary threshold comparisons, preserves the underlying measurement and scoring functions, and would have produced the predictable result of scoring only swings within the selected reference interval. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howenstein in view of Yamada, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Agarwal et al. (US 20210182287 A1, "Agarwal").
Regarding claim 8, Howenstein and Yamada teach the system of claim 7, including the operability score, restitution-adjusted hit-object-speed score, and user-weighted integrated value. However, Howenstein and Yamada do not divide that integrated value by a numerical value representing price.
Agarwal teaches price-aware product recommendation. Agarwal applies "weights on the set of products according to prices," defines a price-derived weight W_i = W(p_i), and teaches that an adjusted product score may be calculated as H_i/W_i before the products are ordered according to the adjusted scores ([0175], [0179]-[0181], Figs. 21-23). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, W_i is a numerical value representing price; claim 8 does not require division by raw currency.
Agarwal is analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem introduced by claim 8: modifying an existing product-suitability score to account for price when ranking candidate products. In In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., a folding-bed reference was reasonably pertinent to a folding-treadmill claim because the folding mechanism and the problem of maintaining the folded position would have commended the reference to the inventor's attention despite the different end products. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379-81, 83 USPQ2d 1746, 1749-51 (Fed. Cir. 2007); MPEP § 2141.01(a). The present facts are similar because the relevant teaching is a product-independent score-and-price ranking operation, not clothing structure or bat structure. Agarwal would logically have commended itself to a person addressing price-adjusted product ranking. This conclusion is not a per se rule that all recommendation references are analogous, and the present record contains no evidence of teaching away, criticality, or unexpected results.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to divide the Howenstein/Yamada integrated score by Agarwal's price- derived numerical value so candidate hitting tools could be ranked on a common price-adjusted basis. Agarwal supplies an analogous product-ranking method, price sensitivity supplies the market incentive for the adaptation, and division by W_i is an expressly identified variation for combining a product score with the price-derived value. The adaptation is an ordinary arithmetic operation that would not change the underlying swing measurement or performance-score functions and would predictably produce a ranking responsive to both suitability and price. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(F).
Claims 10, 11, 14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howenstein in view of Yamada
Regarding claim 10, Howenstein teaches a hitting-tool fitting method that obtains sensor data for each of three tested bats, calculates operability- and momentum-related metrics and scores, combines the scores using user-selected weights, and recommends a bat based on the resulting score, as established for claim 1 ([0206]-[0213], [0217]-[0220], Figs. 46-50). However, Howenstein does not expressly select the three test bats based on user input or require the second score to indicate hit-object speed.
Yamada teaches receiving the batter's name and age and, "[i]n accordance with the input age," selecting three candidate bats having different moments of inertia before the batter swings them (Yamada, [0077]-[0080]). Yamada also calculates ball-launch speed from player-specific swing speed and bat-specific reduced mass and COR, then selects the bat having the maximum calculated ball-launch speed ([0108]-[0112], [0131]-[0139]; claims 10-16)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform Howenstein's fitting method using Yamada's user-attribute-based candidate selection and predicted ball-launch-speed calculation. Howenstein is a base bat-fitting method, and Yamada is a comparable bat-selection method that uses these techniques to narrow the test set and evaluate object-side performance. A person of ordinary skill could have applied
both techniques using the same player, bat, and processor data already present in Howenstein. The candidate-selection technique would predictably reduce the test set to tools suited to the user, and the launch-speed technique would predictably add a direct hit-object-speed indicator, with a reasonable expectation of success because each technique performs its established function in the combined method. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Regarding claim 11, Howenstein and Yamada teach the method of claim 10 and further teach the moment-of-inertia and regression inputs discussed for claim 2 ([0207], [0219]; Yamada, [0098]-[0101], [0148]-[0150]). However, the references do not expressly apply the regression to Howenstein's integrated total score. It would have been obvious to apply Yamada's known regression technique to Howenstein's per-bat score because Howenstein already supplies the score and corresponding moment of inertia for every tested bat. The same data-fitting operation would predictably have generated the claimed function approximation and allowed estimation of additional bats, with a reasonable expectation of success for the reasons stated for claim 2. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding claim 14, Howenstein teaches the method of claim 10 and further teaches the disjunctively recited measurements. Howenstein calculates acceleration or the required time from downswing start to impact, and calculates impact power or momentum using mass, speed, and acceleration or effective mass and endpoint speed ([0151]-[0152], [0207], [0210]; claims 18-22). These are the same express teachings applied to claim 5, and no further modification is needed beyond the combination stated for claim 10.
Regarding claim 16, Howenstein and Yamada teach the method of claim 10, including user- weighted integration of operability and hit-object-speed scores. However, the combination does not expressly require multiplying the second score by a numerical restitution value before integration. Yamada teaches a bat-specific COR used to calculate ball speed and a player-specific multiplicative correction of that COR ([0108]-[0110], [0138]). It would have been obvious to apply that known COR scaling technique to the second score before Howenstein's weighted integration because the correction would continue to represent the bat's contribution to transferred ball speed and would predictably distinguish bats having different restitution performance. The arithmetic modification and reasonable expectation of success are the same as explained for claim 7. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Regarding claim 18, Howenstein teaches the method of claim 10 and calculates a score using a statistical processing value that quantifies the relative relationship among measurements for the tested tools. Howenstein sets the highest observed value across the equipment options to a perfect score and assigns the remaining scores according to their deviation from that maximum ([0212]). This cross-tool scaling expressly quantifies the relative relation among the measured values and teaches the added limitation under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howenstein in view of Yamada, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Bose
Regarding claim 12, Howenstein and Yamada teach the method of claim 11, including three age-selected bats having different moments of inertia and a regression objective. However, they do not expressly require a quadratic function. Bose teaches that sports-motion sensor values may be fit using quadratic functions and regression ([00307]-[00308]). It would have been obvious to apply Bose's known quadratic fitting technique to Yamada's three moment-of-inertia/performance data pairs because Yamada's regression process is ready for that known polynomial alternative. The same inputs and output would be retained, and the technique would predictably represent nonlinear performance data with a reasonable expectation of success for the reasons stated for claim 3. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding claim 13, Howenstein, Yamada, and Bose teach the method of claim 12. However, the references do not expressly label the age-selected bats as the maximum-, minimum-, and intermediate-moment-of-inertia tools. Yamada's selected group contains three bats "having bat lengths and moments of inertia different from one another" ([0077]); those three values necessarily occupy the maximum, minimum, and intermediate positions when ordered within that group. The reasonable-inference rule, factual comparison to In re Preda, and absence of evidence of a different group definition, criticality, teaching away, or unexpected results are the same as explained for claim 4. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968); MPEP § 2144.01. Bose remains in the rejection because claim 13 depends from claim 12
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howenstein in view of Yamada, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Shibuya.
Regarding claim 15, Howenstein and Yamada teach the method of claim 10. However, they do not expressly prohibit total-score calculation when the required time is outside upper and lower thresholds. Howenstein calculates the same start-to-impact elapsed time and reports two-ended typical time ranges, while Shibuya determines whether candidate data are true swing data using temporal conditions and excludes false candidates before analysis ([0152]; Shibuya, [0126]-[0133]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Shibuya's pre-analysis screening technique in the Howenstein/Yamada method and use the endpoints of the applicable Howenstein range as lower and upper thresholds. The base method, applicable technique, predictable benefit of preventing unusually slow or fast trials from distorting the score, and reasonable expectation of success are the same as explained for claim 6. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howenstein in view of Yamada, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Agarwal.
Regarding claim 17, Howenstein and Yamada teach the method of claim 16, including the restitution-adjusted integrated score. However, they do not divide that score by a numerical value representing price. Agarwal teaches price-derived weight W_i = W(p_i), adjustment of a product score using H_i/W_i, and ordering products using the adjusted scores ([0175], [0179]-[0181]).
Agarwal is reasonably pertinent for the same fact-specific reason explained for claim 8: the reference and the claim address the common, product-independent problem of modifying a suitability score to account for price. The comparison to the different-field folding mechanism in In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. therefore applies here and is not used as a per se rule. It would have been obvious to adapt Agarwal's known division operation to the Howenstein/Yamada method because price sensitivity provides the design and market incentive, and the arithmetic variation would predictably produce a price-adjusted ranking without changing the underlying measurement and scoring functions. See KSR; MPEP §§ 2141.01(a) and 2143(I)(F).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howenstein in view of Yamada.
Regarding claim 19, Howenstein and Yamada teach the candidate selection, measurement acquisition, score calculation, user-weighted integration, and diagnosis-information generation operations of claim 10 for the reasons stated above. However, Howenstein does not expressly require those operations to be stored as a diagnosis program on a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium.
Yamada teaches a CPU that reads and executes the bat-selection program and states that the program may be recorded on nonvolatile media including CD, DVD, Blu-ray Disc, USB memory, memory cards, hard disks, magnetic and optical media, EPROM, and EEPROM ([0061]-[0068]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store the combined Howenstein/Yamada fitting instructions on Yamada's disclosed non-transitory recording medium. The prior art supplies each claimed element, ordinary program storage is the known method for making the instructions available to the processor, and the medium and instructions would continue to perform their established storage and execution functions. The predictable result would be a distributable or installable program that causes the computer to perform the combined fitting method, with a reasonable expectation of success because Yamada expressly uses the same storage architecture for a bat-selection program. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(1)(A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-5496. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30 -5:00.
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.
ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT
Examiner
Art Unit 3711
/ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights