DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status.
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims1-15 filed and preliminary amended on 12/17/2024 are pending and being examined. Claims 1, 6, and 15 are independent form.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Interpretation
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
4-1. Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
4-2. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
4-3. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a rotating object detection unit for detecting...”, “a coordinate extraction unit for extracting...”, “a spin data storage unit for in which spin dat...”, and “a spin data derivation unit for deriving...” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
6. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claim 1-9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sim et al (WO2022211377, hereinafter “Sim”). A machine translated English version (i.e., WO2022211377-Eng) of document WO2022211377 is provided by the examiner with this office action.
Regarding claim 1, Sim discloses an apparatus for measuring spin data of a rotating object (the method/system for calculating a spin amount of a golf ball by image processing; see figs.1-9 and Abstract), the apparatus comprising:
a rotating object detection unit detecting an image of a rotating object with respect to an image of n frames captured by a camera (from the camera 110, 120, or 600 shown by fig.1, selecting the n-th frame [image] and n+1-th frame [image] as the first ball image and second ball image, respectively; see pg.8, lines 4-12, in the document WO2022211377-Eng);
a coordinate extraction unit extracting location coordinates of a marker in the rotating object image detected by the rotating object detection unit (from each of the first ball and second ball images, extracting each of the 5 markers and recording the respective center coordinates and orientation angles; see “5 markers” shown by fig.3(a) and (b), the marker’s center coordinates shown by fig.3(c) and (d), and the marker’ orientation angles shown by fig.4. See pg.10, line 8---pg.11, line 9);
a spin data storage unit in which spin data of the rotating object is stored in advance (for the first ball image 610 in fig.5, wherein each marker’s center coordinates, and orientation angles are recorded as shown fig.3(b), fig,3(c), and fig.4); and
a spin data derivation unit deriving final spin data based on the spin data of the rotating object stored in the spin data storage unit and the location coordinates of the marker extracted by the coordinate extraction unit (to calculate spin value of the ball, performing marker matching between the first ball image and the second ball image (see the first ball image 610 and the second ball image 622 in fig.6), comparing the coordinates of the corresponding marker pairs in the two images (see fig.7(a) and fig.7(b), wherein cb1 and cb2 are the center coordinates of the markers in the second ball image while ca1 and ca2 are the center coordinates of the markers in the first ball image), determining the spin axis (see fig.8(a), fig.8(b), and fig.8(c)), and calculating the spin amount of the ball (see Q1 and Q2 in fig.9). Also see pg.11, line 40---pg.16, line 17).
Regarding claim 2, 9, Sim discloses, further comprising: a mapping unit mapping the spin data of the rotating object stored in the spin data storage unit and the location coordinates of the marker extracted by the coordinate extraction unit, and deriving an angle of a common rotation axis and a difference of a rotation amount, wherein the spin data derivation unit derives the final spin data including a rotation axis and a spin rate based on the angle of the common rotation axis and the difference of the rotation amount derived by the mapping unit (to calculate spin value of the ball, performing marker matching between the first ball image and the second ball image (see the first ball image 610 and the second ball image 622 in fig.6), comparing the coordinates of the corresponding marker pairs in the two images (see fig.7(a) and fig.7(b), wherein cb1 and cb2 are center coordinates of the markers in the second ball image while ca1 and ca2 are center coordinates of the markers in the first ball image), determining the spin axis (see fig.8(a), fig.8(b), and fig.8(c)), and calculating the spin amount (see Q1 and Q2 in fig.9). Also see pg.11, line 40---pg.16, line 17).
Regarding claim 3, 7, Sim discloses, wherein: the spin data of the rotating object stored in the spin data storage unit includes a rotation axis angle and a rotation amount angle of the rotating object (the each marker’ orientation angles shown by fig.4), and location coordinates of a marker (the each marker’s center coordinates shown by fig.3(c) and (d)), and the spin data of the rotating object is derived by a 3D simulator (using the sensing device SD including cameras 110 and 120 to obtain 3D coordinates of a ball; see 110 and 120 of fig.1 and pg.6, lines 16-33).
Regarding claim 4, 8, Sim discloses, wherein: the spin data of the rotating object is stored in the spin data storage unit for each type of rotating object distinguished according to the number of markers or a shape of the marker (wherein each marker’s center coordinates, and orientation angles are recorded, see fig.3(b), fig,3(c), and fig.4).
Regarding claims 6, 15, each of which is an inherent variation of claim 1, thus it is interpreted and rejected for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Sim discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein: the mapping unit extracts a rotation axis angle list and a rotation amount angle list mapped to each location coordinate of the rotating object marker from the spin data storage unit based on the location coordinate list of the marker extracted by the coordinate extraction unit (wherein the spin plane PL1 is determined by the center point of the ball and the center coordinates of the marker ca1 and marker cb1 which are pre-defined on the surface of the ball, as shown by fig.8(a); wherein the spin plane PL2 is determined by the center point of the ball and the center coordinates of the marker ca2 and marker cb2 which are pre-defined on the surface of the ball, as shown by fig.8(b). It should be noticed that each of the spin plane PL1 and spin plane PL2 indicates a range of a rotation axis angle and a range of a rotation amount (i.e., angle value);), and extracts the common rotation axis, and derives the angle of the common rotation axis based on the extracted rotation axis angle list and rotation amount angle lists (wherein the spin axis is determined by the plane PL1 and the PL2; see fig.8(c)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 of this title, 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.
9. Claim 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim.
Regarding claims 10-14, each of them has no inventive concept and is an obvious variation of the method in Sim. Specifically, Sim discloses a method for calculating spin amount of a golf ball; wherein the spin plane PL1 is determined by the center point of the ball and the center coordinates of the marker ca1 and marker cb1 which are pre-defined on the surface of the ball, as shown by fig.8(a); wherein the spin plane PL2 is determined by the center point of the ball and the center coordinates of the marker ca2 and marker cb2 which are pre-defined on the surface of the ball, as shown by fig.8(b); wherein each of the spin plane PL1 and spin plane PL2 indicates a range of a rotation axis angle and a range of a rotation amount (i.e., angle value); wherein the spin axis SA is determined by the spin plane PL1 and the spin PL2, see fig.8(c); wherein the final spin amount is determined on the basis of the spin axis SA and the matched marker’s coordinates on the reference plane (PO) as shown by fig.9. See fig.8(a)-(c), fig.9, and pg.15, line 10—pg.16, line 17. Therefore, claims 10-14 are rejected as obvious over Sim.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ijiri et al, US2018/0174308; JUNG, WO 2013081322.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUIPING LI whose telephone number is (571)270-3376. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am--5:30pm.
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, HENOK SHIFERAW can be reached on (571)272-4637. 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; 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.
/RUIPING LI/Primary Examiner, Ph.D., Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights