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. 12138519. 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. 12138519.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation " the difference value". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 9-11, 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RENAULT et al. [KR20210104906 A], hereinafter RENAULT, in view of ISHIKAWA [US20160129307].
Regarding claim 9, RENAULT discloses a system for determining alignment of a golf swing (Figs. 1 and 2), comprising:
a tag device attached to a golf club (“The system includes an electronic tag 120 adapted to be attached to a golf club 110”), including:
an inertial measurement unit comprising at least one sensor, wherein the at least one sensor is configured to output a signal based on a detected condition, movement, or orientation of the tag device (“Any one of an accelerometer, a magnetometer, or a gyroscope may be considered a sensor of the electronic tag 120”); a microprocessor; a memory; a transceiver configured to transmit data corresponding to sensor outputs from the at least one sensor (Figs. 1 and 2); and a battery; and at least one location-aware device in communication with the tag device, including a location aware unit (“The medallion 130 includes a GPS receiver 131 for determining the location of the medallion and thus the golfer during a round of golf”).
However, RENAULT does not explicitly disclose wherein the output signal from the at least one sensor of the tag device is used to determine an actual alignment of the golf club.
Nevertheless, ISHIKAWA teaches in a like invention, wherein the output signal from the at least one sensor is used to determine an actual alignment of the golf club ([0084], “For example, if an angular velocity sensor is used as the inertial sensor, and an axial direction is set to the direction in which the groove or the fitting portion extends, angular velocity about a shaft axis can be detected with high accuracy, and thus it is possible to trace a change or the like in a face angle of a golf club head with high accuracy”).
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 system disclosed by RENAULT, to have the actual alignment of the golf club determined with the output signal from the at least one sensor, as taught by ISHIKAWA, in order to better trace the swing action of the golf club for improvement.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of RENAULT and ISHIKAWA discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the at least one sensor further includes at least one accelerometer, at least one gyroscope, and/or at least one piezo sensor (RENAULT, “Any one of an accelerometer, a magnetometer, or a gyroscope may be considered a sensor of the electronic tag 120”).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of RENAULT and ISHIKAWA discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the tag device includes at least one magnetometer calibrated based on sensor data produced by the at least one accelerometer and/or the at least one gyroscope (RENAULT, “Any one of an accelerometer, a magnetometer, or a gyroscope may be considered a sensor of the electronic tag 120”).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of RENAULT and ISHIKAWA discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the location aware unit includes at least one global positioning system (GPS) chip (RENAULT, “The medallion 130 includes a GPS receiver 131 for determining the location of the medallion and thus the golfer during a round of golf”).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of RENAULT and ISHIKAWA discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the at least one location-aware device includes at least one smartphone, at least one tablet, and/or at least one computer (RENAULT, “A computer interface 138 may also be included to allow the processing system 134 to communicate with an external computer 140 , which may be a smartphone, personal computer, or any other type of computing device”).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RENAULT, in view of ISHIKAWA, further in view of Reeves [US20040073325].
Regarding claim 14, the combination of RENAULT and ISHIKAWA discloses the system of claim 9. However, the combination of RENAULT and ISHIKAWA does not disclose wherein the at least one device determines an intended target line based on input selection of a target location on a map interface.
Nevertheless, Reeves teaches in a like invention, wherein the at least one device determines an intended target line based on input selection of a target location on a map interface (Fig. 4a, [0038], “These are the next club to be used 20, the intended direction line 32 for the next stroke, hole number being played 17, player identity 16 if multiple players are sharing a hand-held unit, and strokes used on the hole 21”).
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 system disclosed by the combination of RENAULT and ISHIKAWA, to have the intended target line based on input selection of a target location on a map interface, as taught by Reeves, in order to assist the golf player aiming the target.
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