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 .
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without adding significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) limitations directed towards mental processes, such as, identifying steps including identifying an external object and identifying the second relative position as claimed. The guide trajectory as claimed can be performed visually where the user uses different reference points including a first and second location as claimed. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no alleged improvement as the claims are directed towards using known sensor and processor means to collect data and to create an output (trajectory guide) by analyzing the input. The examiner notes that limiting the abstract idea to collecting information, analyzing it and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to the data has been found to be directed towards patent ineligible subject matter. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed Cir. 2016). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a display, camera, sensor, processor, glass-type wearable device are all known and routine. The claims, as a whole including the dependent claims, are directed towards using certain data and creating guide trajectories using particular data. The examiner maintains that these claims as a whole are patent ineligible subject matter. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A supra.
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) 21, 23-29, 31-37 and 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da US-20240185532 in view of Peterson et al 20240325847. Da shows an electronic device comprising: a display unit, processing unit, sensing means, the use of AR glasses (fig 1 and 5a). Da also discloses a golf ball recognition device 500 to track the golf ball. Da shows in fig 7B a guide trajectory corresponding to a first location 7B to a second location (target location). This guide trajectory is formed by selecting a first and second location as claimed and the guide trajectory helps guide movement of the external object toward the target position (hole). Da does not specifically disclose using a camera to identify an external object but rather uses GPS means to determine an external object. The external object in Da is the player that is detected and based on the player’s position on the golf course, the system determines the location of the player on the golf course and creates its guide trajectory. Peterson et al show an electronic device comprising a camera 146, display, processing unit which reads on a communication circuitry, and a sensor fig 5. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the known means (GPS detecting means) of Da with known camera means of Peterson et al to identify an external object. Da discloses factoring in environmental information as well as topography information (paragraph 60). Da discloses that the distance to the target can be measured and that a club selection recommendation can be made (paragraph 60). The examiner interprets that the club selection choice is being made based on the distance to the target as well as other factors that are considered, such as, the environmental conditions, such as, wind (paragraph 61) and the golf course topography. These factors would be entirely obvious to consider when making a golf club selection as these variables are considered when playing the game of golf.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-40 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EUGENE LEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6am-4pm.
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.
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.
/EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711