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 1/21/2025 are objected to because they are dark, blurry, and incapable of accurate reproduction for publication. Figs. 3A-5B appear to be screen shots of a color display which was converted to an almost-entirely black image. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “comprising” with a semicolon, but should instead use a colon. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-8 are 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 2 recites the limitation “the relationship” on line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the plurality of line segments” on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the angle” on line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
The following claim limitations have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because they use a non-structural term, which is not preceded by a structural modifier, coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function:
“a feature quantity obtaining unit for obtaining” (claim 1);
“an estimating unit for estimating” (claim 1); and
“a display control unit that displays” (claim 5).
Because these claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), claims 1-7 are interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f); or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)).
If Applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, Applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims are directed to an apparatus and computer-readable medium. Hence, the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of analyzing and estimating features of a golf swing. The claim features amount to an abstract idea in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Claims that require a computer may also recite a mental process, as described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
The claims additionally require various computer-implemented elements, such as a computer to execute a program stored in a recording medium, a display control unit to provide a display, functionally-claimed implementation of various ‘units’ (e.g., estimating unit), and the use of a generic learning model.
These limitations simply describe the process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because the computer-based features outlined above are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering) and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed invention does not provide a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The computer-based features outlined above are generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements, Applicant’s specification discloses them in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a), which satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
The specification admits that the computer-implemented functions require only generic and conventional components. For instance, the disclosure states, “The control apparatus 20 is constituted by a computer or the like, and is equipped with a CPU (Central Processing Unit), a GPU (Graphics Processing Unit), a semiconductor memory such as a ROM (Read Only Memory) and a RAM (Random Access Memory), storage such as a hard disk, and hardware such as a communication I/F…In the present embodiment, the control apparatus 20 corresponds to the swing analyzing apparatus of the present disclosure.” Spec. ¶ 22. This element is reasonably interpreted as a generic computer which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the claimed limitation of “device,” is reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-7 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The dependent claims primarily focus on measuring and/or estimating certain quantities and displaying the outcome of such measurements/estimates. Claim 2 encompasses the use of a learning model, but provides no specifics of what type of learning model is used or any other defining feature. Claim 2 is therefore merely automating the abstract idea with a computer rather than by a person. Courts have determined that such bare automation is not sufficient to save a claim from abstraction.
Therefore, claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2025/0050168 to Kim et al. (hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a swing analyzing apparatus comprising:
a feature quantity obtaining unit for 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
an estimating unit for 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 feature quantity obtaining unit (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).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches wherein the plurality of feature quantities (see ¶ 33 unless otherwise noted) include at least one of a golf ball speed (ball speed), a launch direction (launch angle), a side spin (side spin), a head speed of the clubhead (club speed), a club path (club path), a face to target (e.g., face angle in ¶ 37), a face to path, an impact point (spot associated with a ball strike or spot of impact), and a closure rate.
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches a display control unit that displays 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 unit (e.g., club path in ¶ 33).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches wherein: the display control unit displays the 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).
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches wherein: the display control unit displays 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).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of US 2019/0192950 to Tuxen (hereinafter Tuxen).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches the invention substantially as described above, including wherein the estimating unit estimates at least one of the temporal changes in the angle of the clubface of the clubhead and the movement trajectory of the clubhead (e.g., club path) by inputting the plurality of feature quantities which are obtained by the feature quantity obtaining unit into a computer to determine a relationship between a plurality of feature quantities obtained in advance and at least one of the temporal changes in the angle of the clubface of the clubhead and the movement trajectory of the clubhead during a swing when these feature quantities are obtained (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).
However, Kim lacks in explicitly teaching that the computer uses a learning model which is obtained by machine learning. In a related disclosure, Tuxen teaches a system and method for determining impact characteristics of sports ball striking elements (abstract) including golf balls (e.g., Figs. 1 and 2). Furthermore, Tuxen teaches the use of fix points and fix lines to determine various aspects of a golf swing, such as an attack angle and a club path at the time of impact (see at least ¶ 37). Tuxen additionally teaches the use of machine learning to determine fix points and fix lines in future images (see ¶ 30). Tuxen explains that the machine learning approach may use a neural network trained by human annotations of fix points and fix lines in a high number of images from a test set of images (see ¶ 30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date to modify the system of Kim to include the machine learning of Tuxen in order to more accurately model the golf shot by way of a large training set of test images, as beneficially taught by Tuxen.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of US 20220111282 to Everhart et al. (hereinafter Everhart).
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches 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 system of Kim 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed on the attached Notice of References Cited.
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
Prosecution Insights