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 .
Specification
The incorporation of essential material in the specification by reference to an unpublished U.S. application, foreign application or patent, or to a publication is improper. Applicant is required to amend the disclosure to include the material incorporated by reference, if the material is relied upon to overcome any objection, rejection, or other requirement imposed by the Office. The amendment must be accompanied by a statement executed by the applicant, or a practitioner representing the applicant, stating that the material being inserted is the material previously incorporated by reference and that the amendment contains no new matter. 37 CFR 1.57(g).
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
The following limitations are interpreted as invoking 5 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: In claim 10, “a tensioning means for tensioning the attachment member to the forearm of the user.” The corresponding structure in the disclosure for performing the claimed tensioning is a stretchable portion of the strap, a length-adjusting portion of the strap or a combination of a stretchable portion and a length-adjusting portion (Specification page 13, line 1-3). Therefore, the interpretation of the “tensioning means” is a stretchable portion of the strap, a length-adjusting portion of the strap or a combination of a stretchable portion and a length-adjusting portion or equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-9, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nieminen et al. (US 2007/0135225), hereafter referred to as Nieminen.
Regarding claim 1, Nieminen discloses a wearable device (Figure 1, 1A, element 124 “wearable analyzer”) for improving a user's golf swing, the wearable device comprising:
a sensor unit configured to sense motion sensor data relating to acceleration and rotation of the wearable device in three-dimensional space (Paragraph [0046], “sensor box” 154, “3D accelerometers”, and “3D gyros”);
a stimulator for providing stimuli to the user of the wearable device (Paragraph [0077]; paragraph [0209], “audio/vibration feedback”);
a processor (Figure 1C, element 142; paragraph [0046] “processor”);
a central housing for housing the sensor unit and the stimulator (Figure 1A, element 126, “watch like package”); and
an attachment member for attaching the central housing to a forearm of the user (Figure 1A, element 128; paragraph [0046] “straps… securing the analyzer to the user's wrist”); wherein the processor is configured to:
determine, in dependence on the motion sensor data, a relative direction of gravity relative to an orientation of the wearable device (paragraphs [0087]-[0092], Note: after the “address position” has been determined, sequential detection of a swing movement is carried out); and
detect that the user is in a golf stance position in dependence on the determined relative direction of gravity being within a pre-defined direction range indicative of a golf stance (Figure 4C; paragraphs [0082]-[0084], “address position”);
wherein, in response to the detection of a golf stance position, the processor is further configured to:
determine a motion track of the wearable device in dependence on motion sensor data from the sensor unit (paragraphs [0087]-[0092], Note: after the “address position” has been determined, sequential detection of a swing movement is carried out); and
transmit a stimuli signal to the stimulator causing the stimulator to provide stimuli to the user at a time when a golf swing flaw is detected in the determined motion track (paragraph [0077], “feedback during the movement” and paragraph [0221], “Step 5: If user fails to go through the swing point with an improper movement the analyzer will inform the user about this mistake by, for example, a message on the display, or by a sound or vibration”).
Regarding claim 2, Nieminen discloses the wearable device according to claim 1, and additionally discloses a device wherein the detection of the golf stance position is made in dependence on the determined relative direction of gravity being within the pre-defined direction range for an amount of time longer than a threshold amount of time (Paragraphs [0082]-[0084]).
Regarding claim 3, Nieminen discloses the wearable device according to claim 1, and additionally discloses a device wherein the processor is configured to determine if the wearable device is stationary, and wherein the detection of the golf stance position is made in dependence on the wearable device being determined to be stationary (Paragraphs [0082]-[0084], “non moving”).
Regarding claim 4, Nieminen discloses the wearable device according to claim 1, and additionally discloses a device wherein the processor is configured to adapt the predefined direction range in dependence on a plurality of previously tracked golf swings (Paragraph [0234]-[0242], “Step 8: The user trains to find optimal previously recorded position XY”).
Regarding claim 5, Nieminen discloses the wearable device according to claim 4, and additionally discloses a device wherein the predefined direction range is adapted in dependence of the determined relative direction of gravity for each of the plurality of previously tracked golf swings (Paragraph [0234]-[0242], Note the repetition of steps).
Regarding claim 6, Nieminen discloses the wearable device according to claim 5, and additionally discloses a device wherein the predefined direction range is adapted in dependence on either: an average and variation amount of the determined relative direction of gravity of each of the plurality of tracked golf swings; or an outlining of the determined relative direction of gravity of each of the plurality of tracked golf swings (Paragraph [0014], “(i) stored programs for analyzing and measuring the sport movement by swing positions or events in terms of the various parameters and (ii) a history of past sport movements as target performances” and Paragraphs [0234]-[0242])
Regarding claim 7, Nieminen discloses the wearable device according to claim 4, and additionally discloses a device wherein the processor is further configured to determine if a golf swing has been completed, and wherein the plurality of previously tracked golf swings are golf swings that have been determined to be completed (Paragraph [0222], “the swing is completed, the analyzer saves the swing data in the local or remote storage for future use”).
Regarding claim 8, Nieminen discloses the wearable device according to claim 1, and additionally discloses a device wherein the wearable device further comprises an indicator for indicating an internal state of the wearable device or a state of the tracked motion, wherein the indicator is configured to indicate to the user in dependence on detection of a golf stance position (Figure 1B, element 134; paragraph [0211], “Step 6: If there are other swing positions "en route" and the user goes through them the analyzer device gives feedback of this to the user”).
Regarding claim 9, Nieminen discloses the wearable device according to claim 1, and additionally discloses a device wherein the attachment member is one of a strap for a bracelet, a sleeve, or a glove (Figure 1A, element 128 depicts a strap for a bracelet).
Regarding claim 11, Nieminen discloses the wearable device according to claim 1, and additionally discloses a device wherein the processor is further configured to: determine, in dependence on the motion sensor data, a relative direction of gravity relative to the orientation of the wearable device when the user is in a golf stance position; determine one or more of (a) an arm mount position of the wearable device, (b) a golf club used by the user, and (c) a golf club group used by the user, by comparing the determined relative direction of gravity to a plurality of sub-ranges of a pre-defined direction range, each sub-range being indicative of (a) an arm mount position of the wearable device, (b) a golf club used by the user, or (c) a golf club group used by the user (paragraph [0045], Note: The Nieminen device requires different formulae to be applied whether the device is worn on the left vs wright wrist in relation to the local co-ordinates of the device, i.e. arm mount positions satisfying condition (a)).
Regarding claim 12, Nieminen discloses a method (Abstract) of detecting a golf stance position of a user, the method comprising:
determining, in dependence on motion sensor data from a wearable device worn on a forearm of the user, a relative direction of gravity relative to an orientation of the wearable device (Figures 2A and 2B; paragraph [0084]); and
detecting that the user is in the golf stance position in dependence on the determined relative direction of gravity being within a pre-defined direction range indicative of a golf stance (Figure 4C; paragraphs [0082]-[0084], “address position”).
Regarding claim 13, Nieminen discloses a method (Abstract) of improving a golf swing of a user, the method comprising:
determining, in dependence on motion sensor data from a wearable device worn on a forearm of the user, a relative direction of gravity relative to an orientation of the wearable device (Figures 2A and 2B; paragraph [0084]);
detecting that the user is in a golf stance position in dependence on the determined relative direction of gravity being within a pre-defined direction range indicative of a golf stance (Figure 4C; paragraphs [0082]-[0084], “address position”);
determining, in response to the detection of the golf stance position, a motion track of the wearable device in dependence on motion sensor data from the wearable device (paragraphs [0087]-[0092], Note: after the “address position” has been determined, sequential detection of a swing movement is carried out); and
transmitting a stimuli signal to a stimulator of the wearable device causing the stimulator to provide stimuli to the user at a time when a golf swing flaw is detected in the determined motion track (paragraph [0077], “feedback during the movement” and paragraph [0221], “Step 5: If user fails to go through the swing point with an improper movement the analyzer will inform the user about this mistake by, for example, a message on the display, or by a sound or vibration”’).
Regarding claim 14, Regarding claim 1, Nieminen discloses a wearable device (Figure 1, 1A, element 124 “wearable analyzer”) for improving a user's golf swing, the wearable device comprising:
a sensor unit configured to sense motion sensor data relating to acceleration and rotation of the wearable device in three-dimensional space (Paragraph [0046], “sensor box” 154, “3D accelerometers”, and “3D gyros”);
a stimulator for providing stimuli to the user of the wearable device (Paragraph [0077]; paragraph [0209], “audio/vibration feedback”);
a processor (Figure 1C, element 142; paragraph [0046] “processor”);
a communication unit for communicating with a remotely located device (Figure 1, element 166; paragraph [0047]);
a central housing for housing the sensor unit and the stimulator (Figure 1A, element 126, “watch like package”); and
an attachment member for attaching the central housing to a forearm of the user (Figure 1A, element 128; paragraph [0046] “straps… securing the analyzer to the user's wrist”); wherein the processor is configured to:
determine, in dependence on the motion sensor data, a relative direction of gravity relative to an orientation of the wearable device (paragraphs [0087]-[0092], Note: after the “address position” has been determined, sequential detection of a swing movement is carried out);
determine one or more of (a) an arm mount position of the wearable device, (b) a golf club used by the user, and (c) a golf club group used by the user, by comparing the determined relative direction of gravity to a plurality of sub-ranges of a pre-defined direction range, each sub-range being indicative of (a) an arm mount position of the wearable device, (b) a golf club used by the user, or (c) a golf club group used by the user (paragraph [0045], Note: The Nieminen device requires different formulae to be applied whether the device is worn on the left vs wright wrist in relation to the local co-ordinates of the device, i.e. arm mount positions satisfying condition (a));
determine a motion track of the wearable device in dependence on motion sensor data from the sensor unit (paragraphs [0087]-[0092], Note: after the “address position” has been determined, sequential detection of a swing movement is carried out); and
transmit a stimuli signal to the stimulator causing the stimulator to provide stimuli to the user at a time when a golf swing flaw is detected in the determined motion track (paragraph [0077], “feedback during the movement” and paragraph [0221], “Step 5: If user fails to go through the swing point with an improper movement the analyzer will inform the user about this mistake by, for example, a message on the display, or by a sound or vibration”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieminen et al. (US 2007/0135225) in view of Yuen et al. (US 2014/0107493 ), hereafter referred to as Yuen.
Regarding claim 10, Nieminen discloses the wearable device according to claim 1, and additionally discloses a device wherein the attachment member comprises a tensioning means for tensioning the attachment member to the forearm of the user (Figure 1A, element 130; paragraph [0046] “a clasp or a Velcro material”).
Nieminen does not explicitly disclose an arm-facing surface of the central housing or the attachment member comprises, or is provided with, a friction enhancing material, or an arm-facing surface of the central housing comprises a curved portion.
Furthermore, Yuen teaches a wearable device wherein an arm-facing surface of the central housing (Figure 3, “device housing”) or the attachment member comprises, or is provided with, a friction enhancing material (Claim 14, “the housing includes a friction enhancing material on an outer surface of an interior or skin side of the device, wherein the interior or skin side of the device is configured to engage or contact the skin of the user”), or an arm-facing surface of the central housing comprises a curved portion (Claim 12, “wherein the curved outer surface of the window is disposed on an interior or skin side of the device”). Yuen reveals that it is known in the art of wearable devices to provide an arm facing material comprising a friction enhancing material or a curved portion to enhance contact of the device with the skin of the user. The combination of Nieminen in view of Yuen includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of elements into a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified Nieminen to incorporate the teachings of Yeun to provide an arm facing material comprising a friction enhancing material or a curved portion to enhance contact of the device with the skin of the user. In combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, rendering the results of this combination predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KALYN G YOUNGER whose telephone number is (571)272-0733. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
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.
/K.G.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/NICHOLAS J. WEISS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
