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 .
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12186642, and claims 1-33 of U.S. Patent No. 12138516. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claim limitations claimed by instant claims 1-20 are being disclosed by claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12186642, and claims 1-33 of U.S. Patent No. 12138516.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RENAULT et al. [KR20210104906], hereinafter RENAULT, in view of WEHBA et al. [US20220176201], hereinafter WEHBA.
Regarding claim 1, RENAULT disclose a tag device attachable to a golf club for measuring characteristics of a golf swing (Embodiment 49), comprising:
a plurality of sensors, wherein the plurality of sensors are each configured to output a signal based on a detected condition, movement or orientation of the tag device; a microcontroller including a microprocessor; a memory in communication with the microcontroller and the plurality of sensors; a transceiver configured to transmit data corresponding to sensor outputs from the plurality of sensors to a remote computing device; and a battery; wherein the tag device operates in one of a plurality of power states ranging from a lowest power state to a highest power state; wherein each of the plurality of power states is assigned stored sensor output reference values corresponding to one or more of the plurality of sensors; wherein a functional state of the plurality of sensors and an amount of power supplied to the plurality of sensors are based on the current power state of the tag device; wherein at least one power state is selected based on the sensor outputs of the tag device and the at least one power state is assigned a stored reference value for a sensor; wherein upon one or more of the plurality of sensors detecting a sensor output value that falls outside corresponding stored reference values for a current power state, one or more of the plurality of sensors sends a communication to the microcontroller indicating that the corresponding stored reference values of the current power state has been exceeded; and wherein upon the microcontroller receiving the communication from the plurality of sensors that the stored reference value of the current power state has been exceeded, the tag device transitions from the current power state to a subsequent power state (Figs. 1 and 2, “Embodiment 10. The method according to any one of embodiments 1 to 9, further comprising: receiving the second startup event from the first sensor; in response to the second startup event, starting the processor from the first low power state to the active state; obtaining second information from the first sensor of the electronic tag; calculating a second direction of the golf club based on the second information; determining that the second direction of the golf club is within the first predetermined range; comparing the second direction of the golf club with the stored direction of the golf club; in response to the second orientation being different from the stored orientation by less than a predetermined difference, activating the second startup event and setting the processor to the first low power state; and in response to the second orientation being different from the stored orientation by more than the predetermined difference, activating a second sensor of the electronic tag” and “Embodiment 49. The electronic tag of any one of embodiments 46-48, further comprising a wireless communication interface, wherein the processor has a second low power state, wherein the second low power state is a higher power state than the first low power state; , the processor is further programmed to receive first data from the first sensor and second data from the second sensor; further programmed to recognize a swing of the golf club based on at least a portion of the first data and/or at least a portion of the second data; further programmed to deactivate the second sensor; further programmed to transmit information regarding the swing of the golf club via a wireless communication link; and further programmed to initiate the second low power state”).
However, RENAULT does not explicitly disclose the tag device further comprising a finite state machine and wherein initial processing of the sensor outputs is performed using finite state machine logic.
Nevertheless, WEHBA teaches in a like invention, a finite state machine and wherein initial processing of the sensor outputs is performed using finite state machine logic ([0074], “The finite state machine monitors the sensor data to determine when the user has begun performing an exercise, the completion of repetitions is identified by detecting a state transition, as described above”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tag device as disclosed by RENAULT, to have the finite state machine, as taught by WEHBA, in order to efficiently and effectively implement the state transition logic.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of RENAULT and WEHBA disclose the tag device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sensors are selected from one or more of at least one accelerometer configured to detect an acceleration of the tag device, at least one shock sensor configured to detect a shock imparted on the tag device, at least one position sensor configured to detect a position of the tag device, at least one gyro sensor configured to detect an orientation of the tag device, at least one tilt sensor configured to detect a tilt of the tag device, at least one magnetometer configured to measure an orientation of the tag device, and/or at least one photosensor configured to measure a light exposure of the tag device (RENAULT, “The electronic tag 120 also includes an accelerometer 232 . Accelerometer 232 may include any number of any type of accelerometer”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of RENAULT and WEHBA disclose the tag device of claim 2, wherein upon the at least one accelerometer detecting an acceleration outside of a stored acceleration reference value, the at least one accelerometer sends a communication to the microprocessor indicating that the stored acceleration reference value of the current power state has been exceeded (RENAULT, “Calculation of motion can be performed using any sensor data, but using detection of changes in direction, changes in acceleration (linear and/or angular), changes in the amount of light received, or by any other technique. can be performed. For a predetermined period of time, which may be any amount of time, but may be 0.5 seconds, 2 seconds, or 8 seconds in various embodiments, if there is a large amount of club movement, the club 110 is inactive 610 , and the first It can be set to a low power state”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of RENAULT and WEHBA disclose the tag device of claim 2, wherein upon the at least one position sensor detecting a position outside of a stored position reference value, the at least one position sensor sends a communication to the microprocessor indicating that the stored position reference value of the current power state has been exceeded (RENAULT, “As the golfer 320 takes the club 110 out of the golf bag 330 and carries it to the location of his ball, the processor 210 of the electronic tag 120 causes it to detach from the dark golf bag 330 . It is started by the light sensor 230 when The accelerometer 232 is then used to determine that the club 110 is in a ready-to-swing position, thereby minimizing power usage until that time”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of RENAULT and WEHBA disclose the tag device of claim 2, wherein upon the at least one gyro sensor detecting an orientation outside of a stored orientation reference value, the at least one gyro sensor sends a communication to the microprocessor indicating that the stored orientation reference value of the current power state has been exceeded (RENAULT, “While various embodiments may use different values for the predetermined difference, many embodiments may use a predetermined difference of between 0.5° and 10°, and at least one embodiment may use a predetermined difference of about 5°. can Additionally, in response to the second orientation being different from the stored orientation by more than a predetermined difference, a second sensor 234 , which may be a gyroscope of the electronic tag 120 , may be activated 541” and “If the first orientation is outside the first predetermined range, the orientation of the club 110 may be stored 510 for later use, at least in part by removing power from the light sensor, whereby the first start-up event will be deactivated. can (511).”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of RENAULT and WEHBA disclose the tag device of claim 2, wherein upon the at least one magnetometer detecting an orientation outside of a stored orientation reference value, the at least one magnetometer sends a communication to the microprocessor indicating that the stored orientation reference value of the current power state has been exceeded (RENAULT, “Other methods may be used to calculate the orientation of the golf club 110 , such as using information from the magnetometer of the electronic tag 120”).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RENAULT, in view of WEHBA, further in view of Hunter [US20170043228].
Regarding claim 4, the combination of RENAULT and WEHBA disclose the tag device of claim 2, wherein upon the at least one sensor detecting a signal outside of a stored signal reference value, the at least one sensor sends a communication to the microprocessor indicating that the stored reference value of the current power state has been exceeded (RENAULT, “Calculation of motion can be performed using any sensor data, but using detection of changes in direction, changes in acceleration (linear and/or angular), changes in the amount of light received, or by any other technique. can be performed. For a predetermined period of time, which may be any amount of time, but may be 0.5 seconds, 2 seconds, or 8 seconds in various embodiments, if there is a large amount of club movement, the club 110 is inactive 610 , and the first It can be set to a low power state”).
However, the combination of RENAULT and WEHBA does not explicitly disclose the at least one sensor being a shock sensor detecting a shock.
Nevertheless, Hunter teaches in a like invention, using a shock sensor for detecting a shock ([0111], “The shock and vibration sensor 106 is used to detect the effects of impact in terms of forces up the golf club, and is used in the detection of ball contact during a swing”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tag device as disclosed by the combination of RENAULT and WEHBA, to have the shock sensor, as taught by Hunter, in order to detect a state change more accurately.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RENAULT, in view of WEHBA, further in view of BEATTY [US20220296983].
Regarding claim 7, the combination of RENAULT and WEHBA disclose the tag device of claim 2, wherein upon the at least one sensor detecting a signal outside of a stored signal reference value, the at least one sensor sends a communication to the microprocessor indicating that the stored signal reference value of the current power state has been exceeded (RENAULT, “Calculation of motion can be performed using any sensor data, but using detection of changes in direction, changes in acceleration (linear and/or angular), changes in the amount of light received, or by any other technique. can be performed. For a predetermined period of time, which may be any amount of time, but may be 0.5 seconds, 2 seconds, or 8 seconds in various embodiments, if there is a large amount of club movement, the club 110 is inactive 610 , and the first It can be set to a low power state”).
However, the combination of RENAULT and WEHBA does not explicitly disclose the at least one sensor being a tilt sensor detecting a tilt.
Nevertheless, BEATTY teaches in a like invention, using a shock sensor for detecting a shock ([0045], “In another scenario, sensors 105 may detect the degree/angle of a golf club swing using one or more tilt sensors attached to the player and/or equipment”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tag device as disclosed by the combination of RENAULT and WEHBA, to have the tilt sensor, as taught by BEATTY, in order to detect a state change more accurately.
Claim(s) 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RENAULT, in view of WEHBA, further in view of KODAIRA et al. [US20170239520], hereinafter KODAIRA.
Regarding claim 9, please refer to the claim rejection of claim 1 for the tag device with all claimed limitations in claim 1. However, RENAULT does not explicitly disclose the tag device including an inertial measurement unit and wherein the tag device operates in one of a plurality of swing states including a pre-swing state, a swing state, and a post-swing state; and wherein upon one or more of the plurality of sensors detecting a sensor output value that falls outside a corresponding stored reference value for a current swing state, the tag device transitions from the current swing state to a subsequent swing state.
However, KODAIRA teaches in a like invention, an inertial measurement unit and transition between different swing states (Figs. 3 and 6, [0021], “A motion analysis method according to this application example includes detecting a state of a shaft of an exercise equipment by using an output from an inertial sensor; calculating a relative rotation angle of the shaft which changes about an axis of the shaft until the shaft transitions from a first state to a second state due to a swing of the exercise equipment; and comparing the calculated relative rotation angle with a reference relative rotation angle in a reference swing which is used as a reference, with respect to at least one of a change range of the relative rotation angle”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tag device as disclosed by the combination of RENAULT and WEHBA, to have the swing state transition analysis, as taught by KODAIRA, in order to get detailed information on good swing action for improvement.
Regarding claim 10, please refer to the claim rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of RENAULT, WEHBA and KODAIRA disclose the automated system of claim 9, wherein the remote computing device calculates a length, a loft, and/or a lie of the golf club in one or more of the plurality of swing states of the tag device from one or more measurements from the one or more of the plurality of sensors (RENAULT, “In some embodiments, the lie angle of the golf club 110 (ie, the angle between the bottom of the head 114 and the shaft 112 ) may be provided on the electronic tag 120 , and a first range ( 422) (or second range 424)”).
Regarding claim 12, please refer to the claim rejection of claims 5 and 6.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of RENAULT, WEHBA and KODAIRA disclose the automated system of claim 9, wherein the remote computing device reconstructs and displays a 2-D model of movement of the golf club across the plurality of swing states (KODAIRA, [0089], “An image (FIG. 8) representing a swing action is generated on the basis of the specified movement trajectory. The image is output as image data from the swing image data generation portion 35”).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of RENAULT, WEHBA and KODAIRA disclose the automated system of claim 9, wherein the remote computing device reconstructs and displays a 3-D model of movement of the golf club across the plurality of swing states (KODAIRA, [0054], “The calculation processing circuit 14 defines a virtual space which is a three-dimensional space. The three-dimensional space specifies a real space. FIG. 2 is a diagram for explaining a three-dimensional motion analysis model”).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, the combination of RENAULT, WEHBA and KODAIRA disclose the automated system of claim 9, wherein the remote computing device is operable to allow a user to identify another known position for comparison with positions of the remote computing device and the tag device; wherein the position determination unit determines the current position of the remote computing device relative to another known position (RENAULT, “The system 100 may further include a medallion 130 , the medallion 130 being a second electronic device for receiving information from the electronic tag 120 and adapted to be worn by a golfer during a round of golf. do. Medallion 130 may be a specially designed device used solely for the purpose of receiving information from electronic tag 120 , or a general purpose device such as a smartphone running an application for receiving information from electronic tag 120 . can be The medallion 130 includes a GPS receiver 131 for determining the location of the medallion and thus the golfer during a round of golf. It further includes a wireless receiver 132 for receiving information from the electronic tag 120 , and a processing system 134 for processing information received from the electronic tag 120”).
Regarding claim 17, please refer to the claim rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of RENAULT, WEHBA and KODAIRA disclose the automated system of claim 17, wherein the remote computing device calculates and displays a distance and the bearing of the tag device relative to the other known position (RENAULT, “a distance from the electronic tag to a golf hole”).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, please refer to the claim rejections of claims 13 and 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YINGCHUAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1375. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 4:30 M-F.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/YINGCHUAN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights