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 .
Drawings
The drawings received on 9/9/2026 are acceptable. The previous objection to the drawings is therefore withdrawn.
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 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0050168 to Kim et al. (hereinafter Kim) in view of US 2023/0149789 to Root et al. (hereinafter Root).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Kim teaches a swing analyzing apparatus comprising:
a processor (e.g., processor in ¶ 64); and
a memory (e.g., memory in ¶ 64), the memory storing instructions to cause the processor to perform:
obtaining a plurality of feature quantities at a point in time when a clubhead of a golf club impacts a golf ball when a golf club is swung (e.g., “the information generation unit 110 according to one embodiment of the invention may measure or estimate information on a physical quantity of a ball from at least one swing” in ¶ 33); and
estimating at least one of temporal changes in an angle of a clubface of the clubhead and a movement trajectory of the clubhead, based on the plurality of feature quantities obtained by the obtaining (e.g., “the information generation unit 110 according to one embodiment of the invention may measure or estimate information on a physical quantity of a ball from at least one swing…Here, the information on the physical quantity may refer to information acquired from at least one module (e.g., body or head orientation, eye orientation, launch angle, side angle, spot associated with a ball strike (or spot of impact), time of impact, back spin, side spin, ball speed, club speed, club orientation, ball rotation, impulse, and club path” in ¶ 33), […]
wherein the plurality of feature quantities include at least one of a golf ball speed (e.g., ball speed in ¶ 33), a launch direction (e.g., launch angle in ¶ 33), a side spin (e.g., side spin in ¶ 33), a head speed of the clubhead (e.g., club speed in ¶ 33), a club path (e.g., club path in ¶ 33), a face to target (e.g., face angle in ¶ 37), a face to path, an impact point (e.g., spot associated with a ball strike or spot of impact in ¶ 33), and a closure rate.
Further regarding claims 1 and 8, Kim teaches the invention substantially as described above, but lacks in explicitly teaching (a) wherein the estimating estimates the at least one of the temporal changes in the angle of the clubface of the clubhead and the movement trajectory of the clubhead by inputting the plurality of feature quantities obtained by the obtaining into a learning model obtained by machine learning a relationship between a plurality of feature quantities obtained in advance and at least one of temporal changes in an angle of a clubface of a clubhead and a movement trajectory of the clubhead during a swing in which the feature quantities are obtained, and (b) wherein image analysis is not performed when the estimating estimates the at least one of the temporal changes in the angle of the clubface of the clubhead and the movement trajectory of the clubhead. While Kim teaches the estimating steps in parts (a) and (b), Kim lacks in teaching the use of a learning model obtained by machine learning and that image analysis is not performed when the estimating takes place.
In a related disclosure, Root teaches a system and device for capturing data associated with the characteristics of a golf swing through a plurality of sensors, wherein the device may be affixed to a golf club and capture data associated with the characteristics of a golf swing (abstract). More particularly, Root teaches that a sensor, such as an accelerometer, may be used in conjunction with an algorithm such as a neural network to analyze the sensor data to determine the golf club orientation (¶ 60). This meets the limitation of machine learning and the angle of the clubface of the clubhead as claimed. Root further teaches the use of a 3-axis accelerometer and a microprocessor that communicates with a neural network to calibrate the device 100 to adjust for swing orientation of the golfer and to determine when the device is in a pre-swing, swing, and/or after-swing state (¶ 87). This meets the limitation of machine learning and temporal changes of the angle of the clubface and/or the movement trajectory of the clubhead, as claimed. Both teachings of Root meet the claimed image analysis not being performed when the estimating takes place because Root uses an accelerometer to generate movement data and does not disclose any camera or image analysis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date to modify the system of Kim to allow a non-image based approach using sensor data in combination with a machine learning model, as taught or suggested by Root, in order to allow golfers to improve their play by swing analysis, as beneficially taught by Root ¶ 45. Such modification allows golfers to practice swings at various locations that are not necessarily in proximity to an image analysis device, thus improving the golfer’s freedom of movement.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kim and Root teaches or suggests wherein the memory stores instructions to cause the processor to display, via a display unit, at least one of the temporal changes in the angle of the clubface of the clubhead and the movement trajectory of the clubhead estimated by the estimating (e.g., club path in ¶ 33 of Kim).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kim and Root teaches or suggests wherein the memory further stores instructions to cause the processor to display, via the display unit, a plurality of line segments that represent the clubface in chronological order as temporal changes in the angle of the clubface (e.g., a first graphic object displayed in the first region such that the shape of the ball, the spot associated with the strike of the ball, and the face angle are represented in the form of points, lines, or surfaces, and a second graphic object displayed in the second region such that the ball speed or club head speed measured or estimated from the user's swing is represented in the form of a bar or line segment in ¶ 50 of Kim).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kim and Root teaches or suggests wherein the memory further stores instructions to cause the processor to display, via the display unit, line segments that represent the movement trajectory of the clubhead as the movement trajectory of the clubhead (e.g., a first graphic object displayed in the first region such that the shape of the ball, the spot associated with the strike of the ball, and the face angle are represented in the form of points, lines, or surfaces, and a second graphic object displayed in the second region such that the ball speed or club head speed measured or estimated from the user's swing is represented in the form of a bar or line segment in ¶ 50 of Kim).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Root in view of US 20220111282 to Everhart et al. (hereinafter Everhart).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kim and Root teaches or suggests the invention substantially as described above, but lacks in explicitly teaching feature quantities include face to path and closure rate. In a related disclosure, Everhart teaches systems, methods, and devices for providing an adjusted yardage recommendation to a golfer based on predicted golf ball trajectories that are modeled from a golfer's golf ball launch data (see at least abstract). More particularly, Everhart teaches golf shot data including a large number of metrics, including closure rate (see ¶ 46) and face to path (see ¶ 53), which may be used in combination (see ¶ 77). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date to modify the combination of Kim and Root to include parameters of closure rate and face to path, as taught or suggested by Everhart, in order to provide a more complete dataset to accurately model the golf swing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/9/2026 have been fully considered. The arguments are addressed in turn.
As an initial matter, the Examiner notes with appreciation the interview conducted on 9/1/2026 (summary mailed 9/3/2026). Applicant’s representative incorporated substantial changes discussed during the interview into the reply of 9/9/2026. These changes are helpful to advance prosecution.
The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112(b) are withdrawn in light of the instant claim amendments. The arguments on pages 6-15 of the Remarks section regarding these rejections are therefore moot.
Applicant addresses the grounds of rejection over Kim, alone or in view of Tuxen and Everhart, on pages 15-16 of the Remarks. As detailed in the grounds of rejection above, Tuxen is no longer relied upon to teach the claimed features. A new reference to Root (in combination with Kim or Kim and Everhart) is introduced for all pending claims in order to address newly-added features of the amended claims. As such, the arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Finally, Applicant addresses the previous objection to the drawings on pages 16-17 of the Remarks section. The objection is withdrawn in light of the instant amendments to the drawings.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H MCCULLOCH whose telephone number is (571)272-2818. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/WILLIAM H MCCULLOCH JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
